Walthall v. State

2 S.W.2d 442, 109 Tex. Crim. 26
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 21, 1927
DocketNo. 11325.
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 2 S.W.2d 442 (Walthall v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Walthall v. State, 2 S.W.2d 442, 109 Tex. Crim. 26 (Tex. 1927).

Opinions

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The indictment under which appellant was tried charged the offense of burglary and contained averments showing that appellant had been previously convicted *28 of three successive offenses of like character; because of repetition of offenses, the penalty assessed was imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.

The state’s testimony showed, in substance, that the office of the American Railway Express Company at Driscoll in Nueces County was burglarized on the night of October 4, 1926; that a suit of clothes and pistol were stolen therefrom; that about the 6 of October, 1926, appellant pledged the stolen suit of clothes to one Charley Jones in Robstown; that shortly thereafter the stolen suit was delivered by Charley Jones to officers; that officers delivered the suit to an agent of the American Railway Express Company; that the clothes were identified as being the property taken on the occasion of the burglary.

Appellant offered no testimony. A witness for the state testified that appellant stated, at the time he pledged the suit, that he had ordered the suit and that it belonged to him.

The record discloses that in 1917 appellant was convicted in Van Zandt County of the offense of burglary, for which he served a term in the penitentiary; that in 1919, he was convicted in. Jackson County of the offense of burglary, for which he served a term in the penitentiary; and that in 1920, he was convicted in San Patricio County of the offense of burglary.

Appellant’s bills of exception are not sufficiently full in their recital of facts to enable us to determine whether the matters complained of constitute reversible error.

Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

Related

Cantu v. State
557 S.W.2d 107 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Bridges v. State
360 S.W.2d 532 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1962)
Davis v. State
167 Tex. Crim. 524 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1958)
Brady v. State
187 S.W.2d 224 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1945)
Gandy v. State
139 S.W.2d 275 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Berthrong v. State
124 S.W.2d 379 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1939)
Angus v. State
124 S.W.2d 349 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1939)
Padillo v. State
86 S.W.2d 772 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Huston v. State
71 S.W.2d 876 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Calloway v. State
67 S.W.2d 872 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Stroud v. State
60 S.W.2d 439 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Jenkins and Williams v. State
40 S.W.2d 109 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 S.W.2d 442, 109 Tex. Crim. 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walthall-v-state-texcrimapp-1927.