Case Name: Chester Willoughby v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-12-10
Citations: 87 Tex. Crim. 40
Docket Number: No. 5574
Parties: Chester Willoughby v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 40–46

Head Matter:
Chester Willoughby v. The State.
No. 5574.
Decided December 10, 1919.
Rehearing granted March 3, 1920.
1. —Burglary—Recognizance—Punishment.
Where the recognizance failed to state the punishment fixed against the appellant the same is defective. Following: Watson v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 620, and other cases.
2. —Same—Recognizance.—Appeal—Felony—Statutes Construed.
Article 320, Vernon’s C. C. P., binds the appellant only for his appear, anee in the trial court, but article 903 of said code prescribes the form of recognizance which should be given by one who is convicted of a felony and appeals, and such recognizance should state the amount of punishment. Following: Hays v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 596; 204 S. W. Rep., 330, and other cases. But the appellant was allowed to file in the trial court a proper appeal bond and the case is now here heard on its merits.
3. —Same—Burglarious Entry—Guilty Participation.
Where, upon trial of burglary, the indictment charged burglary by breaking and entry in the usual form, and the evidence showed that the fastening on the transom had been broken off and the property had been taken from the burglarized house, said entry, etc., was sufficiently proved.
4. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence—Practice on Appeal.
Inasmuch as the case is reversed for other reasons the sufficiency of the evidence is not discussed as a whole.
5. —Same—Cross-examination—Evidence.
Where the State contended that if any error was committed in the original admission ,of defendant’s statement, that the suit case and grip was his property, the same was rendered harmless because defendant brought out the same facts on cross-examination, the same is untenable.
6. —Same—Confession—Evidence—Fruits of Crime.
Where, upon trial of burglary, the evidence showed that, something like a month after the said burglary, two hand grips and a suit case were found in different places under a house which was ocuupied by defendant and his mother who were not at home at the time, and that the grips were taken away by the officers' to police headquarters and defendant later came down to the police station with an officer and as he entered the office said, “That suit case and black grip is my property,” the contention of the State that defendant’s statement was admissible because the stolen property was found is untenable, because it was already found when the statement was made.
7. —Same—Declaration by Defendant—Evidence—Arrest—Confession.
Where, upon trial of burglary, the evidence showed that a suit case and grip were found some time after the burglary which contained the alleged stolen property, and when the defendant was shown the same said that they were his property, the same is a confession and must be taken as an inculpatory statement.
8. —Same—Evidence—Confession—Arrest.
Where, upon trial of burglary, it was shown that the defendant when he made the statement of the ownership of the alleged stolen property was in custody of an officer, although he was not then formally arrested, his confession was inadmissible unless it was made as the statute directed and it was reversible error to admit the same in evidence.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Bowie. Tried below before the Hon. P. A. Turner, judge.
Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two- years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
Mahaffey, Keeny & Dalby and S. I. Robison, for appellant.
On question of confessions: Binkley v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 54, 100 S. W. Rep., 780; Dover v. State, 81 Texas Crim. Rep., 545, 197 S. W. Rep., 192; Wimberly v. State, 22 Texas Crim. Rep., 506.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of cross-examination: Covington v. Sloan, 124 S. W. Rep., 690.
On question of confession: Whorton v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 1,152 S. W. Rep., 1082; Mason v. State, 168 S. W. Rep., 122.
On question of arrest: Fielder v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 184; Turner v. State, 62 id., 65; Lane v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 65, 152 S. W. Rep., 897.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of burglary in the District Court of Bowie County, and given two years in the penitentiary.
The Assistant Attorney General has made a motion to dismiss this appeal, because the recognizance of the appellant, as the same appears in the record, does not show the punishment fixed against appellant. The, recognizance is as follows:
"THIS DAY Came into open Court, Chester Willoughby, Defendant, in the above styled and numbered cause, who, together with Frank Davenport and J. A. Davenport, Sureties, acknowledged themselves jointly and severally, indebted to the State of Texas, in the sum of One Thousand ($1000) Dollars, Conditioned that the said Chester Willoughby, who stands charged with the offense of a felony in this Court, and who has been convicted of the offense of a Felony in this Court, shall appear before this Court from day to day, and from Term to Term of same, and not depart therefrom, without leave of this Court, in order to abide a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas, in this cause."'
An inspection of the recognizance will show that the ground of the' motion is well taken, ,and the appeal, for that reason, is dismissed. Hays v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 569, 204 S. W. R., 330; Goss v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 349, 202 S. W. R., 956; Watson v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 620.
The motion is sustained and the appeal dismissed.
Dismissed.