Case Name: Martin Foster v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1928-05-16
Citations: 110 Tex. Crim. 594
Docket Number: No. 11618
Parties: Martin Foster v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 594–596

Head Matter:
Martin Foster v. The State.
No. 11618.
Delivered May 16, 1928.
Rehearing granted October 10, 1928.
The opinion states the case.
Oliver Cunningham of .Abilene, for appellant.
On variance in burglary of private residence, appellant.cites : Jones v. State, 47 Tex. Crim. Rep. 126; Martinus v. State, 47 Tex. Crim. Rep. 528; Miller v. State, 81 Tex. Crim. Rep. 237; Robinson v. State, 200 S. W. 162 and Dodd v. State, 1 S. W. (2d) 292.
A. A. Dawson of Canton, State’s Attorney, for the state.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Conviction for burglary; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.
There seems no question from the testimony but that appellant, acting with others, burglarized the house in question. Appellant did not testify, but his written confession was introduced. No bill of exceptions appears in the record. The motion for new trial filed by appellant simply says that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the law and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. The contention of appellant on this appeal is that the evidence is insufficient because, as he insists, the indictment charged an ordinary burglary, and the evidence showed the burglary of a private residence.
There is testimony in the record showing that Ira L. Guffey, the alleged owner of the burglarized house, did live in said house with his family, and that same was therefore his residence, but no showing is made in this record that the house so burglarized was exclusively used for the purpose of a residence. For aught we know from the record the building may have been used for one or more other purposes. In the absence of any testimony supporting the contention of appellant that this house was exclusively .used for residence purposes, and following the opinions of this court heretofore rendered, we find ourselves unable to agree that the case should be reversed upon the contention made. Alinis v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep. 272; Alinis v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep. 371; Shornweber v. State, 70 Texas Crim. Rep. 389.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.