Court Opinion

ID: 9648111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:03:28.163594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:56.407332
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion affirming the conviction, but deem it proper to point out that there is no evidence to sustain the *611allegation of the indictment that the conviction for robbery in 1955 was for an offense committed after the conviction for felony theft in 1953 became final. Rogers v. State, 168 Tex. Cr. Rep. 306, 325 S.W. 2d 697, and Rogers v. State, 169 Tex. Cr. Rep. 239, 333 S.W. 2d 383.
As in the last cited Rogers case, the indictment relied upon by the state was not sufficient because a conviction under said indictment could be had upon proof that the robbery for which appellant was convicted in 1955 was committed prior to his conviction in 1953 for felony theft.
The affirmance of the conviction herein for robbery is not inconsistent with the decisions in the Rogers cases for the reason that the maximum punishment for robbery is life imprisonment and both prior convictions were for offenses of the same nature. Proof, therefore, that appellant committed the robbery presently charged, after his prior conviction for robbery was final, authorized life imprisonment under Art. 62 P.C.