Court Opinion

ID: 9675968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:11:15.300837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:41.916083
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
The state now moves this court to set aside its opinion of December 7, 1966, which affirmed appellant’s conviction for felony theft and reformed the judgment and sentence to provide for confinement in the penitentiary for a term of ten years (enhanced under Art. 62⅜ V.P.C.) and to now affirm the original judgment of conviction with punishment — enhanced under Art. 63, supra — at life imprisonment.
It is insisted that evidence was adduced upon the trial, showing the date of commission of the offense of theft for which appellant was convicted on April 26, 1963, which evidence was inadvertently omitted from the original statement of facts.
In support of its contention, the state relies upon an instrument filed in this court on December 21, 1966, in the cause, styled “Certification of questions and answers inadvertently omitted from original statement of fact_” Such instrument, certified to by the official court reporter who took the proceedings in the cause in shorthand, contains an agreement signed by appellant’s trial counsel and counsel for the state in which counsel agree
“that the above and foregoing certification of questions and answers inadvertently omitted from original Statement of Facts in said Cause is correct and should be included in the previously approved Statement of Facts in said Cause had upon the trial before the Honorable Fred M. Hooey, Judge of the Criminal District Court No. 6 of Harris County, Texas — at the time and place as shown by the Caption thereto on Page One.”
Under the authority of Angle v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 305, 306 S.W.2d 718, the original statement of facts and the questions and answers, now certified to as having been inadvertently omitted therefrom, will be considered in passing upon the state’s motion for rehearing.
As now presented, the record reflects that on direct examination the state’s witness J. T. Stevenson, referring to the 1963 conviction, testified — among other things— as follows:
“Q Tell the jury the date on which the offense occurred, the items that were involved in that offense ? A It was on the 13th of February in 1963.
“Q That was the date on which the offense occurred? A Yes, sir, the night of the 13th.”
It thus appears that the witness did testify as to when the offense was committed and that it was committed on February 13, 1963, which was after appellant’s conviction in 1961 became final.
The proof offered by the state authorized the enhancement of appellant’s punishment under Art. 63, supra.
The state’s motion for rehearing is granted, our order reforming the judgment and sentence is set aside, and the original judgment of conviction for felony theft, with punishment enhanced under Art. 63, supra, at life imprisonment, is affirmed.