Court Opinion

ID: 9773498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:47:42.550855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:54.474255
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant insists that the state failed to prove the allegations of the indictment that the burglarized building was occupied or controlled by Ben Brannon and was entered without his consent with intent to steal his property.
*173In addition to what was said in our original opinion, Mr. Brannon testified :
“Q. What business are you in Mr. Brannon? A. Service Printing and Office Supply.
“Q. Where was your business located, please, at that time? (October 1950.) A. No. 512 W. Jefferson.”
He then testified that on October 22, 1950, his business was burglarized.
We disclaim any intention of holding in our original opinion that the question of the insufficiency of the evidence because of variance could not be raised for the first time in this court. The rule to the contrary is well established. 18 Texas Jur., Sections 306 and 307, pages 428 and 429; 4 Texas Jur., Sec. 147, p. 206; McElroy v. State, 154 Texas Cr. Rep. 20, 224 S.W. 2d 715.
We remain convinced that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the. allegation of the indictment.
In this connection we observe that neither the agreement of counsel nor the certificate of approval of the trial judge certifies directly that the statement of facts contains a full and complete transcript of all of the evidence adduced at the trial.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.