Case Name: Dale HALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1954-10-20
Citations: 272 S.W.2d 896
Docket Number: No. 27092
Parties: Dale HALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 272
Pages: 896–898

Head Matter:
Dale HALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 27092.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 20, 1954.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 1, 1954.
Maurice E. Wright, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Commissioner.
This is a conviction for the non-capital offense of robbery by assault, the punishment assessed .being twelve years in the penitentiary.
The indictment alleged that the appellant, by assault and while exhibiting a knife, robbed Pedro De LaRosa of jewelry and ninety-three dollars in mpney.
The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction presents the sole question ' for review.
The record reflects a stealing of, from, and by thieves from one another.
Two juveniles burglarized a jewelry store in Plainview and stole therefrom something like twenty-nine hundred dollars' worth of jewelry. De LaRosa was contacted and agreed to sell some of the jewelry. for the boys and divide the proceeds. In pursuance of that agreement, De La-Rosa carried a quantity of the stolen property (watches and rings) to Lubbock to sell.
It was the theory of the state, finding support in the evidence, that a prostitute tipped off the appellant and his companions that De LaRosa had the jewelry and money in his room at a hotel. According to De LaRosa's testimony, the appellant and a companion forcibly entered his hotel room and, at the point of a drawn knife, robbed him of and took from his possession ninety-three dollars in money.
It would serve no useful purpose to detail the succeeding facts, as the state made a case of robbery by this testimony.
It is the rule that in a robbery case proof that any of the property alleged 'to have been taken was taken is sufficient to sustain the conviction. Branch's P.C., Sec. 2402.
Appellant's contention that the state was also under the burden of proving the taking of jewelry in the robbery is therefore overruled.
Such conclusion also answers ap.pellant's contention that the term, "jewelry," was so indefinite as not to give the .appellant notice of the property he was alleged to have taken, because the conviction did not rest upon that allegation.
The ninety-three dollars that was taken in the robbery was in the care, control, and possession of De LaRosa and he was therefore the owner thereof within the meaning of that term as used in theft cases. The fact that such sum of money or a large portion thereof had been received by De LaRosa from a sale of some of the stolen property would not alter or change the ownership thereof.
The facts abundantly establish the appellant's guilt.
The judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the court.