Court Opinion

ID: 9883813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:20:50.813637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:31.540993
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant again contends that the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction.
Mrs. Gressett, the occupant of the house in question, testified that she was resting on the floor of her residence between a bed and a chest of drawers on a hot summer afternoon; that, from where she lay, she could see the screen door leading into the back yard, which served both the residence and her tavern, constituting a part of the same building; that she heard someone cut the screen, looked up, saw appellant standing just outside her door, and observed that he was in the process of cutting the screen just above the latch. Mrs. Gressett testified that she called to appellant, asked him what he was doing, then *174threatened to shoot him if he did not get away; whereupon, appellant left without answering her. She then called the police and, very shortly thereafter, identified appellant, who lived in the neighborhood.
Police officers investigating the incident testified that the screen door had been recently cut and that appellant, when arrested, had a knife in his pocket.
Appellant and one Jones, who was called as a witness in appellant’s behalf, testified that together they had repaired to the back of the premises in question in order to purchase and consume a bottle of beer from the tavern.
Jones testified that, while they were so engaged, appellant left him and went in the direction of the door in question, which was out of Jones’ view; that about five minutes later appellant came back “walking pretty fast,” passed him and went on down the alley. Jones stated that Mrs. Gressett came out after appellant had left and asked him if he had seen anyone cutting her screen and required him to wait until the police arrived.
Appellant testified that, when he left his companion Jones, he had gone to a rest room and, in returning therefrom, had stumbled and fallen against the screen door in question; that he had not answered Mrs. Gressett’s questions, and admitted that, in leaving the yard, he walked right past his companion Jones “and told him lets get away there is a lady in there lets get away from here.”
We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction of an attempt to commit burglary with intent to commit the crime of theft.
Appellant cites us Freeman v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 381, 216 S. W. 878, as authority for his contention that the facts do not show that appellant intended to commit the crime of theft. The Freeman case is distinguishable from the case at bar in that the evidence in the Freeman case, supporting the conclusion that appellant intended to commit the crime of rape, was more persuasive than that he intended to commit theft. The statement made by appellant as he left his companion and the scene of the crime indicated surprise over the fact that someone was in the house, and thereby supported the conclusion that he had intended to steal while the owner was away.
*175Appellant contends that the indictment is fatally defective in that it fails to contain the allegation that the crime was committed in Harris County. The indictment alleges, omitting matters of substance, as follows:
“The Grand Jury of Harris County, Texas * * * do present that * * "* in said County and State * * * did on or about * * * then and there attempt to break and enter a house then and there occupied * *
We think this was a sufficient allegation as to venue. Baggett v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. R. 618, 229 S. W. (2d) 801; and Heath v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. R. 563, 244 S. W. (2d) 815.
Appellant further complains of the order in which the prior convictions were plead in the indictment.
Recently, in Clifton v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. R. 655, 246 S. W. (2d) 201, in writing on the same question, we held the order of pleading unimportant so long as the requisite allegations appeared. There, we said:
“The indictment is not in the form suggested by Willson’s Texas Criminal Forms. The difference herein is that the prior offense is charged first and then the primary offense is set forth, reciting the matters chronologically rather than in the sequence generally employed.
“The requisite element of such a charge is that it be shown therein that the person charged had, prior to the commission of the primary offense, been convicted in the prior case and that such conviction had become final.
* * *
“We hold this indictment to be sufficient.”
Appellant further contends that the indictment is fatally defective in that it does not allege that appellant intended to “steal.” _We do find the allegation “with the intent then and there to fraudulently take therefrom.”
In McKinney v. State, 28 S. W. 816, we held “to charge, a fraudulent taking, as was done in this case, sufficiently charges stealing * * *.”
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.