Court Opinion

ID: 9680630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:35:24.408551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.732282
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Pursuant to our opinion of October 12, 1966, we have now been furnished a complete transcript of the reporter’s notes covering appellant’s trial.
It would serve no purpose to detail the facts appearing therein other than to observe that a police officer apprehended appellant in the act of breaking into a store at 3:30 in the morning. He fired a warning shot after instructing appellant to “Hold it.” Appellant fell on the roof of the shed where he was standing and within a matter of seconds a second police officer discovered appellant hiding near the shed from which he had jumped or fallen. Near him were some burglar tools, and another was recovered from the roof of the shed.
Appellant and his witnesses testified that they were playing cards in the neighborhood of the store and that appellant left the game only seconds before the shot was fired. Appellant denied that he was attempting to break into the store and stated that the officers arrested him in the alley as he was on his way home. He admitted giving the officers a false name.
The prior convictions alleged for enhancement were stipulated and appellant admitted being the person so convicted.
We have now been satisfied that appellant has not been deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal. We see no merit in appellant’s contention that his counsel in this case had prosecuted him in one of the cases alleged for enhancement. When such fact was made known to the Court, appellant personally indicated his desire to proceed with the counsel who was then representing him.
Finding no reversible error, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.