Case ID: sw2d_16/html/1116-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MARTIN, J. MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ora Lee DIXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    (No. 12235.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 27, 1929.
    Rehearing Denied May 8, 1929.
    Harvey P. Shead, of Port Worth, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MARTIN, J.

Offense, robbery by assault; penalty, five years in the penitentiary.

Prosecuting witness, R. N. Howell, was the night watchman at a laundry. The place was robbed of about $1,300 at the point of a pistol, and appellant was shown by appropriate testimony to have been the offender. No bills of exception appear in the record.

We have carefully examined the statement of facts, and, believing the evidence sufficient, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. 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

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

No doubt is entertained of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The robbery was proved by Howell, the injured party. Something over $1,600 i was taken from the safe. The appellant and his confederates were in pos--session of a sum of money exceeding $1,600 on the night that the robbery occurred, and previously on the same night were shown to have been practically without funds. The appellant’s confession before his arrest was proved. In addition to that, he made a formal confession in writing after his arrest. Its voluntary character was attacked, but the conflicting evidence justified the rejection of the contention by the jury. Moreover, aside from the confession made after the arrest, the evidence seems quite sufficient to support, the verdict. The appellant testified, and denied any participation in the robbery. The issues of fact were submitted to the jury in a charge against which there is no complaint directed. In the motion .for rehearing,, the only complaint of the judgment is the-alleged insufficiency of the evidence.

The motion is overruled. 
      
       Indictment alleged talcing o£ $1,300 and evidence showed theit of $1,600.