Case Name: Earl Van BUCKNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1977-12-14
Citations: 571 S.W.2d 519
Docket Number: No. 53676
Parties: Earl Van BUCKNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: ODOM, J., concurs in the result.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 571
Pages: 519–526

Head Matter:
Earl Van BUCKNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 53676.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 14, 1977.
On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Oct. 4, 1978.
Randolph L. Schaffer Jr., Houston, Court appointed on appeal only, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Robert A. Shults and Robert N. Burdette, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
ODOM, Judge.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated robbery. Punishment, enhanced under V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 12.42(c), was assessed by the court at 35 years.
In his only ground of error appellant contends the trial court improperly admitted evidence of an extraneous aggravated robbery committed eleven days before the offenses charged in the indictment. It is conceded that identity was in issue, but appellant argues the extraneous offense lacked sufficient distinguishing characteristics in common with the primary offenses to render it admissible on identity. The record, however, reflects no objection on this ground. The only objection was that the evidence offered by the state showed an extraneous offense. The record reflects the following objection:
"[Defense counsel]: We feel that this testimony is not admissible for the reason that it shows an extraneous offense. However, in all candor I feel since the question of identity has come up — that would be the basis of our objection, if it does show an extraneous offense other than for which he's being tried, Your Honor.
"THE COURT: All right. The objection will be overruled, . ."
The contention on appeal is at variance with the trial objection, and presents nothing for review. E. g. Sirls v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 511 S.W.2d 55. Further, if the objection were proper the extraneous offense was admissible under Ransom v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 503 S.W.2d 810.
An examination of the record reveals that only one judgment and one sentence were entered. These instruments, however, recite that appellant was found guilty of "Aggravated Robbery as charged in both counts of the indictment." Although separate instruments for each count is the better practice, the instruments here are sufficient. Durham v. State, 557 S.W.2d 526 (1977).
The judgments are affirmed.