Pickens v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Pickens v. State

768 S.W.2d 496, 1989 Tex. App. LEXIS 748, 1989 WL 31306

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 6, 1989

DocketNo. 01-88-00864-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 768 S.W.2d 496 (Pickens v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pickens v. State, 768 S.W.2d 496, 1989 Tex. App. LEXIS 748, 1989 WL 31306 (Tex. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

O’CONNOR, Justice.

A jury found appellant guilty of burglary of a habitation. Appellant pled true to two enhancement allegations, and the trial court assessed punishment at 40 years confinement. In one point of error, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to show that he entered the habitation without the effective consent of the owner, Hung Tran.

The State alleged appellant entered the habitation with the intent to commit theft “without the effective consent of Charles Hileman, the owner thereof....” Hileman testified he did not give appellant consent to burglarize his apartment or to take any of the property inside. Appellant argues that Tran, who was the roommate of Hile-man, was also required to testify that appellant entered the apartment without his consent.

Appellant’s point of error is without merit. Where there is more than one owner of property, the State is required to allege and prove ownership in only one of them. Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. art. 21.08 (Vernon Pamph.1989). The State alleged and proved that appellant entered the apartment without Mr. Hileman’s effective consent. There is no evidence Mr. Tran gave appellant consent to enter; thus, Mr. Tran’s testimony was not required. See [497]*497and compare Villanueva v. State, 711 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1986), pet. refd per curiam, 725 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Crim.App.1987).

We overrule appellant’s point of error and affirm the judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

O’CONNOR, Justice.

A jury found appellant guilty of burglary of a habitation. Appellant pled true to two enhancement allegations, and the trial court assessed punishment at 40 years confinement. In one point of error, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to show that he entered the habitation without the effective consent of the owner, Hung Tran.

The State alleged appellant entered the habitation with the intent to commit theft “without the effective consent of Charles Hileman, the owner thereof....” Hileman testified he did not give appellant consent to burglarize his apartment or to take any of the property inside. Appellant argues that Tran, who was the roommate of Hile-man, was also required to testify that appellant entered the apartment without his consent.

Appellant’s point of error is without merit. Where there is more than one owner of property, the State is required to allege and prove ownership in only one of them. Tex.Code Crim.P.Ann. art. 21.08 (Vernon Pamph.1989). The State alleged and proved that appellant entered the apartment without Mr. Hileman’s effective consent. There is no evidence Mr. Tran gave appellant consent to enter; thus, Mr. Tran’s testimony was not required. See [497]*497and compare Villanueva v. State, 711 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1986), pet. refd per curiam, 725 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Crim.App.1987).

We overrule appellant’s point of error and affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

768 S.W.2d 496, 1989 Tex. App. LEXIS 748, 1989 WL 31306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickens-v-state-texapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack