Williams v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Williams v. State

422 S.W.2d 450, 1968 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 850

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 3, 1968

Docket40881

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 422 S.W.2d 450 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 422 S.W.2d 450, 1968 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 850 (Tex. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

DICE, Judge.

The conviction is for robbery with firearms; the punishment, forty-five years.

Trial was to a jury upon appellant’s plea of guilty.

Appellant’s sole ground of error on appeal is that the proof offered by the state was insufficient to show his guilt, the principal contention being that there was a fatal variance between the pleading and the proof as to the middle name of the person alleged to have been robbed.

Recently, in Miller v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 412 S.W.2d 650, in passing upon a similar contention, we pointed out that it was the well-established rule that a plea of guilty admits the existence of all facts necessary to establish guilt, and in such cases the introduction of testimony by the state is for the jury’s benefit in fixing punishment. It was also pointed out that the requirement of Art. 1.15 of the Vernon’s Ann.Code of Criminal Procedure that evidence be offered by the state showing the guilt of a defendant is applicable only in those cases where the defendant, upon entering a plea of guilty in a felony case less than capital, waives his right to a trial by jury.

We observe, without passing upon appellant’s claim of variance as to the middle name of the injured party, that had there been a variance, as contended, such would have been immaterial. 30 Tex.Jur. 2d 650, Sec. 65; Scott v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 368 S.W.2d 216; Ex parte Mackerman, Tex.Cr.App., 376 S.W.2d 350.

The ground of error is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

DICE, Judge.

The conviction is for robbery with firearms; the punishment, forty-five years.

Trial was to a jury upon appellant’s plea of guilty.

Appellant’s sole ground of error on appeal is that the proof offered by the state was insufficient to show his guilt, the principal contention being that there was a fatal variance between the pleading and the proof as to the middle name of the person alleged to have been robbed.

Recently, in Miller v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 412 S.W.2d 650, in passing upon a similar contention, we pointed out that it was the well-established rule that a plea of guilty admits the existence of all facts necessary to establish guilt, and in such cases the introduction of testimony by the state is for the jury’s benefit in fixing punishment. It was also pointed out that the requirement of Art. 1.15 of the Vernon’s Ann.Code of Criminal Procedure that evidence be offered by the state showing the guilt of a defendant is applicable only in those cases where the defendant, upon entering a plea of guilty in a felony case less than capital, waives his right to a trial by jury.

We observe, without passing upon appellant’s claim of variance as to the middle name of the injured party, that had there been a variance, as contended, such would have been immaterial. 30 Tex.Jur. 2d 650, Sec. 65; Scott v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 368 S.W.2d 216; Ex parte Mackerman, Tex.Cr.App., 376 S.W.2d 350.

The ground of error is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 S.W.2d 450, 1968 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-texcrimapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack