Court Opinion

ID: 9675587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:58:33.175474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:35.701558
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Commissioner.
Appellant insists that Terry v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.App. 110, 191 S.W.2d 736, supports his contention that the 1953 conviction for passing a forged instrument, used by the state for enhancement, was not a final conviction because the judgment introduced in evidence and reciting that the court accepted his plea of guilty and assessed punishment at five years, contained portions of the printed form applicable to a plea of guilty before a jury which were not deleted.
Terry v. State, supra, is not applicable because, in that case, the sentence pronounced in the prior case used for enhancement failed to include the penalty and was later corrected in a nunc pro tunc proceeding. Here, there was no nunc pro tunc proceeding correcting the judgment.
Under the decisions cited in our original opinion, we remain convinced that the 1953 conviction was shown to be a final conviction and available to the state for the purpose of enhancement.
Appellant now urges, for the first time, that the search of his apartment was illegal because the affidavit for the search warrant did not satisfy the requirements of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as construed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Aguilar v. State, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed. 723.
As pointed out in our original opinion, appellant did not challenge the legality of the search warrant. An examination of the record shows that prior to admitting evidence of the search, the search warrant was produced by the state and exhibited to counsel for appellant. After inspecting same, counsel stated to the court that appellant had no objection.
The search warrant was not introduced in evidence and does not appear among the exhibits in the cause. Appellant has attached to his motion for rehearing a purported certified copy of the warrant, prepared by Justice of the Peace W. C. Ragan. We cannot consider such a copy as a part of the record in the case. Robertson v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 35, 322 S.W.2d 620; Lewis v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.App. 224, 192 S.W.2d 889.
The affidavit and search warrant not being a part of the record in the trial court, appellant’s petition for a writ of certiorari, directing the clerk to include such instru*421ments in a statement of facts to be forwarded to this court, is denied. Bracken v. State, 29 Tex.App. 362, 16 S.W. 192.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.