Court Opinion

ID: 9774717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:31:26.045931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:14.344833
License: Public Domain

*96TEAGUE, Judge,
dissenting.
The issue that is before this Court is not whether the prosecution could have properly alleged and proved that Freddy Albert Cardenas Robles, appellant, committed a first degree felony offense. As shown by the facts of the case, it could have easily done so with a minimum of effort. The issue that is before this Court, however, is whether the prosecution proved the offense it alleged appellant had committed, namely, that appellant had entered the residence of Richard Merrill with intent to commit the offense of theft.
Appellant’s counsel asserted on appeal and asserts in his petition for discretionary review that where the State alleges that the accused committed the offense of burglary with intent to commit theft, it must prove that the object of the entry was to appropriate something of value therefrom or to appropriate something of value that was located therein. He then argues that the State failed to prove this implied, but necessary element of the offense.
The First Court of Appeals in Houston, without referring the reader to a single published decision of any English speaking court, rejected appellant’s assertion. This Court, likewise without citation of authority, affirms the holding of the Court of Appeals. Because I am now convinced that appellant’s counsel is absolutely correct in his assertion, I must dissent.
Lord Coke, see 3 Inst., 63, defined a burglar to be “one that, in the night-time, breaketh and entereth into a mansion house of another, with intent to kill some reasonable creature, or to commit some other felony within the same, whether his felonious intent be executed or not.” [Emphasis Added]. “At Common Law, [however], the crime of burglary consisted of breaking and entering of a dwelling house of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony therein.” [Emphasis Added]. Black’s Law Dictionary 179 (5th ed. 1979).
The Common Law, in one form or another, has always been a part of Texas law. The Constitution of the Republic of Texas, 1836, Art. IY, Sec. 13, 1 Laws of Texas, 1074, provided: “The Congress shall, as early as possible, introduce by statute, the common law of England, with such modifications as our circumstances, in their judgments, may require; and in all criminal cases, the common law shall be the rule of decision.” On January 20,1840, see 2 Laws of Texas, 177, the Congress of the Republic of Texas enacted the following: “The Common Law of England (so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution or acts of Congress now in force) shall, together with such acts, be the rule of decisions in this Republic, and shall continue in full force until altered or repealed by Congress.” Art. 38.01, V.A.C.C.P., the present Code of Criminal Procedure, provides: “The rules of evidence known to the common law of England, both in civil and criminal cases, shall govern in the trial of criminal actions in this State, except where they are in conflict with the provisions of this Code or of some statute of the State.” Also see Art. 1.27, V.A.C.C.P.
Commencing in the early 1800’s, States of the Union revised their respective systems of criminal law. The leading architect in this endeavor was the distinguished jurist, Mr. Livingston. See, “Livingston and the Penal Codes,” 1 Tex.L.Rev. p. 25, at pp. 36, and 37 (1922).
Texas was not far behind in amending and revising its penal laws. In pursuance of an act of the Texas Legislature, John W. Harris, James Willie, and Oliver C. Hartley were appointed to prepare codes amending, revising and digesting the laws of Texas, civil and criminal. Relying heavily upon what Livingston had done, see supra, and what Hartley had done, see Oliver C. Hart-ley, A Digest of the Laws of Texas (1850), the three prepared and submitted to the Legislature a Penal Code and a Code of Criminal Procedure. In 1857, the Legislature adopted much of what Harris, Willie, and Hartley had done. One of the objectives of the enactment of a Penal Code for this State appears to have been to define criminal offenses in plain and simple language, and to eliminate unnecessary verbiage.
*97From 1857 through the most recent Legislature, efforts to define the crime of burglary in plain and simple language have ranged from being extremely generous in the use of the English language to the present burglary statute which reflects an attempt to use the least number of words possible.
The original precursor to the present burglary statute appears to have been the Legislative Act of December 21, 1836, which defined the offense of burglary as follows: “Every person who shall break and enter into any dwelling-house or store, by night, and feloniously take therefrom any goods, chattels, money, or other articles of value, shall be deemed guilty of burglary, and on conviction thereof shall suffer death.” Hartley, A Digest of the Laws of Texas, 116 (1850). However, in 1848, see Legislative Act of March 20, 1848, Hartley, supra, 116, the Legislature no longer felt it was necessary to expressly state in the statute the phrase “take therefrom,” presumably because it was obvious where the object sought by the burglar would be located. The phrase does not appear to have been placed in any burglary statute thereafter enacted or revised by the Legislature.
However, even though the phrase, “take therefrom,” was no longer expressed in the statute, this Court’s predecessor held that it was still incumbent upon the prosecution to allege that the goods intended to be stolen were in the house entered. Sullivan v. State, 13 Tex.App. 462 (1883). In Sullivan v. State, supra, the following question was asked: “Does the indictment show that the goods intended to be stolen were in the house entered?,” and answered: “We think so, ‘then and there being found’ being in the approved form for this allegation.”
My research reveals that commencing in 1876, it became the intent of the Legislature to expand the burglary statute so that non-residential structures, as well as residential structures, were included in the burglary statute, as well as manifesting an intent to establish that unlawful entry could occur other than by “breaking and entering.” However, I am unable to find anywhere where any Legislature of this State has ever contemplated that the location of the object the burglar sought was to exist other than inside of the burglarized premises, and neither the opinion of the Court of Appeals nor the majority opinion refers me to a location where such might be reflected in print.
The majority opinion adopts and approves what the Court of Appeals held, and states the following: “That the statute does not expressly require an intent to steal property from within the burglarized premises and we hold there is no such requirement.” Like the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the majority opinion cites no authority in support of its statement and holding. Because the majority opinion is without support in law, or reasoning, the language contained therein necessarily resembles an extremely brittle and fragile object.
Let us look at why the majority holds as it does. First, the majority attempts to show strength in its position by downplaying the decisional authorities appellant presents in support of his contention that the object of any burglary was extant in the premises sought to be burglarized. The majority states the following: “We also find that none of the cases cited by appellant held that the intent to commit theft required for burglary means an intent to steal from the burglarized premises.” P. 93. However, overlooked by both appellant and the majority is the decision of Sullivan v. State, supra, which I have previously discussed. Although appellant did not cite Sullivan v. State, supra, he did cite Sims v. State, 2 Tex.App. 110 (1877), which contains the following statement: “In other words, to enter a house with intent to steal therefrom constitutes the crime of burglary under the law as it now is ...” This, of course, is in accord with what the Court of Appeals later stated in Sullivan v. State, supra.
The majority, apparently in an effort to close out its opinion in style, seizes upon a general statement found in Thommen v. State, 505 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), to-wit: “From the earliest times, the of*98fense of burglary has been defined by Texas statutes more broadly than at the common law.” This statement, at first blush, might appear to overcome what I have previously attempted to state, that substantively there has not really been much change in the offense of burglary since the Common Law. However, if one carefully reads Thommen v. State, supra, I believe he will find that what this Court was referring to when it made the statement the majority quotes had nothing whatsoever to do with where the object of the intent of the burglar might exist. Instead, the Court was pointing out that, contrary to the elements of the offense of burglary as it existed at Common Law, Texas had provided in its statutory scheme for the offense that unlawful entry could occur other than by mere breaking and entering, such as “by entering a house by fraud, at night, or in like manner by entering a house during the day, and remaining concealed therein until night, with the intent, in either case, of committing felony or the crime of theft,” or “by entering a house at any time, either day or night, and remaining concealed therein, with the intent, in either case, of committing felony or the crime of theft.” Thus, the issue that confronted the Court in Thommen v. State, supra, was not whether the object of the burglar was extant in the burglarized premises, but, instead, how the term “concealment” was to be construed.
For all of the above reasons, the majority opinion should be unacceptable to reasonable minded persons.
If approved, I find that the majority opinion will give birth to what will cause members of the trial judiciary and members of the appellate judiciary of this State many a sleepless night. By the majority opinion’s holding, a defendant may now be convicted of burglary of a habitation, (or a building), where it is only alleged that he committed the burglary with the intent to commit theft. The object the burglar seeks need not be within the burglarized premises. In light of this holding, I must ask the following question: Because the majority’s holding does not restrict the prosecution to prove that the defendant gained unlawful entry while possessing an intent to commit a theft inside of the burglarized premises, but may now prove “with intent to commit theft,” by establishing that what the burglar sought was at another and different location, if the ultimate purpose or object of what the defendant sought is intimately intertwined with the defendant’s intent to commit theft when he entered the burglarized premises, will the defendant now be entitled to have a motion to quash the information or indictment, where it only alleges “with intent to commit theft,” granted by the trial court? If the trial court overrules the motion, will the appellate courts of this State, including this Court, be required to reverse the defendant’s conviction solely for this reason?
For all of the above and foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
ONION, P.J., joins.