Case Name: SINGLETON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-04-07
Citations: 221 S.W. 610
Docket Number: No. 5771
Parties: SINGLETON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 221
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
SINGLETON v. STATE.
(No. 5771.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 7, 1920.
On Motion to Reinstate, May 5, 1920.)
1. Bail <@=366 — Recognizance on appeal held insufficient.
Recognizance on appeal from conviction of a felony, reciting that defendant “stands charged with the offense of the felony in this court, and who had been convicted' of the offense of a felony in this court shall appear,” etc., held insufficient on objection that it failed to state the offense of which defendant was charged and of which he was convicted, and that it was not sufficient to allege broadly and generally that defendant was charged with a felony and convicted of a felony.
On Motion to Reinstate.
2. Criminal law <@=>l 131 (7) — Appeal dismissed for insufficiency of recognizance reinstated upon filing of proper recognizance.
Appeal which has been dismissed because of an insufficient recognizance will be reinstated on the filing of a proper recognizance.
3. Criminal lav/ <@=3517(4) — Confession of burglary held admissible where stolen property was recovered as result.
In a prosecution for burglary where the whereabouts of the property taken was unknown until defendant made his confession, and was recovered as a result of such confession, the confession was admissible under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, arts. 809, 810, though the confession was procured by threats or persuasion after arrest and though defendant had not been warned.
Appeal from District Court, Sabine County; W. T. Davis, Judge.
Dial Singleton was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Minton & Lewis, of I-Iemphill, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
This conviction was for burglary of a private residence.
Motion is made by the Assistant Attorney General to dismiss the appeal because the recognizance entered into to consummate the appeal is not in accordance with the law. After reciting that the parties came into open court and entered into a recognizance, it further recites that defendant "stands charged with the offense of the felony in this court, and who has been convicted of the offense of a felony in this court shall appear," etc. The point of attack in the motion is that the recognizance is not sufficient in failing to state the offense of which appellant stood charged and of which he was convicted; that it is not sufficient to allege broadly and generally that the party was charged with a felony and convicted of a felony. If this had been an appearance bond, it might have been sufficient; but this rule does not apply to an appeal recognizance after conviction of a felony. This character of recognizance had been held illegal in several cases. Willoughby v. State, 219 S. W. 468, decided at the present term of the court; Goss v. State, 202 S. W. 956; Hayes v. State, 204 S. W. 330.
For the reasons indicated, we think the motion of the Assistant Attorney General is well taken and should be sustained.
The appeal is dismissed.
On Motion to Reinstate.
This conviction was for burglary of a private residence. On a former day of the term the appeal was dismissed because of insufficient recognizance. A proper recognizance has been filed, and therefore the appeal is reinstated and will be decided upon the record.
There is but one question in the case, though presented by different bills of exception. The first and second bills were reserved to the action of the court permitting the two witnesses, one named, in each bill, to testify to appellant's confession. The third bill ' was to the refusal to give a charge instructing the jury not to consider the confession, and the fourth was reserved to the overruling of the motion for new trial.
,[3] The evidence shows that the private residence was burned at night; that it had been closed and the owner and his family were absent; and that during their absence at night the house was burned'. There was a pistol in the house which had been borrowed by the owner of the residence from a relative. The owner of the house was anxious to recover this pistol. After investigating the premises and matters connected with the burning, the conclusion was reached that appellant was either guilty or had some connection with it. He had in the meantime gone to an adjoining county. He was followed there by the owner and a deputy sheriff of Sabine county. After conferring with the sheriff of the county where appellant was located, they took him in charge, and either by threats or persuasion, or both, he made a confession, told the circumstances, and through his confessions and his acts while under arrest they recovered the pistol. The whereabouts of the pistol was unknown until appellant made the confession and went with the officers to the parties from whom the pistol was secured. The confession is full, connecting appellant with entering the house, seeking the pistol, and, as he claimed, incidentally burning the house while in it. He disclaimed any willful purpose in regard to burning the house in his confession, but stated that in lighting matches and hunting around through the house for property, and perhaps the pistol specially, the house caught fire. Under the testimony, before he could have entered the house some opening must have been forced and the house broken. We are of opinion that the confession, although appellant was under arrest, was admissible, though secured by threats or persuasion. Articles 809 and 810, O. O. P., provide that unwarned confessions shall not be used when the party is under arrest unless in connection with that he makes statements which lead to the recovery of the fruits of the crime, and where he does make such statements they are admissible, although unwarned and under arrest, and although the confession is obtained by persuasion or by threats. The cases will be found collated in Branch's Orim. Law, § 222, and Branch's P. C., pp. 36 and 37. The authorities are quite numerous sustaining the above statements and are in harmony with the statute. It is 'thought unnecessary to take up, analyze, or quote from these opinions. They all sustain the ruling of the court with reference to the propositions above stated.
There being no reversible error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
<@=3For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes