Case Name: Thomas Baker BARFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1959-04-22
Citations: 323 S.W.2d 455
Docket Number: No. 30633
Parties: Thomas Baker BARFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 323
Pages: 455–456

Head Matter:
Thomas Baker BARFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 30633.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 22, 1959.
Charles Owen Melder, Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D* White, Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., and Frank Briscoe, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is burglary, with two prior convictions for felonies less than capital alleged for enhancement; the punishment, life imprisonment, in compliance with the terms of Article 63, Vernon's Ann.P.C.
The appellant and another man werp apprehended inside a beer establishment on the night in question after the same had been closed by the owner. A back window of the place had been broken in, the cigarette machine was damaged, and a hammer was found nearby.
Proof of the prior convictions was made in the manner approved by this Court in Stockwell v. State, 316 S.W.2d 742, and the cases there cited, by introducing the records of the Prison System showing the prior convictions and by fingerprint comparison and photographs showing that the appellant was the same individual who had been previously convicted.
Appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.
There are no formal bills of exception in the record. The appellant in his brief seeks to raise a question as to the admissibility of certain of the records and their sufficiency to support this con viction. Such exhibits were introduced without objection at the trial. Having Jailed to object, the appellant is deemed to waive any complaint arising therefrom. We note, however, that this Court recently, in Skaggs v. State, 319 S.W.2d 310, has ruled adversely to the appellant's contention that the records were inadmissible; and held that the evidence in a similar case was sufficient to support the conviction.
Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.