Court Opinion

ID: 9667701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:52:49.938504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:40.010247
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
In a forceful motion and in argument, appellant’s able attorney has reasserted his contention that, because aggravated assault is a lesser and included offense to the offense of robbery and was the offense charged in one count of the indictment, the jury should have been charged that they might find the accused guilty of aggravated assault. Appellant contends that Stevens v. State, 138 Texas Cr. Rep. 59, 134 S.W. 2d 246, supports such view of the law. With this contention we cannot agree. It should be noted that in the Stevens case we said, “In fact, a reading of the record would justify a serious doubt as to the correctness of her belief that there was penetration.” Of course, if there was no penetration, the offense would be assault with intent or attempt to rape rather than the offense of rape. Applying the test in the Stevens case to the case at bar, can we say that a reading of the record would justify a serious doubt as to the correctness of Betancu’s testimony that he had been robbed as well as assaulted? We think not.
*498Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.