*1 297 discharged, jail, ant to be committed to is
or admitted to bail.” was
We remain that this cause convinced disposed opin-
correctly original of in our is Appellant’s rehearing motion
ion. for
overruled. CARSO, Appellant,
Carlos F.
v. Texas, Appellee.
The STATE of No. 36295. Guevara, Jr., Appeal (On Alex Houston Appeals Court of Criminal of Texas. Houston, appellant. Only), Reilly, Ken for 11, Dec. 1963. Briscoe, Atty., Frank Dist. Carl E. F. Rehearing 29, 1964. Denied Jan. Dally Brough, and C. Asst. Dist. James Attys., Houston, Douglas, and Leon B. Rehearing Second Motion for Denied Austin, Atty., State’s for the State. 26, Feb. 1964.
McDonald, judge.
Appellant stands convicted by of Robbery Assault. jury The found him to be the same person previously felony convicted of three capital offenses less than judg on which of ments conviction had become final. The imprisonment sentence is in life the state penitentiary.
The evidence that the of reflects victim Holmes, robbery, Ralph manager the R. of Club, the was in his office Country Houston appellant, at the club when a stranger, en- and, pistol point, tered the at robbed office country him the club’s cash box contain- of ap- the Mr. Holmes identified ing $979.45. who., pellant in the as the man courtroom which had been robbed him. The cash box recovered, by identified Holmes* was also Queen, fingerprint
R. O. and classifier Depart- identifier for the Houston Police ment, expertness stipulated; after his having by appellant, the testified that three finger-! *2 298 prints found on the door at the pass upon scene of the the contention that rights his robbery appellant. were those of the Fur- were violated the when indictment alleging ther against appellant evidence prior the included the convictions was jury read to the an oral confession which he made to Hous- and motion, exhibited before In his them. Doss,
ton Police Lt. detailing appellant W. C. the in- right insists he that was denied the robbery, cidents of the which enabled Doss to a impartial and fair trial under the Fifth to learn of pistol and recover the used and there- the Fourteenth Amendments to Consti- in. rights tution of the United States and like guaranteed to him under the Constitution Appellant rights contends that his State, alleging this when the indictment of by allegation were violated in the indict prior felony the the convictions was read to felony capi ment three of offenses less than jury proof by and heard them. thereon was tal, being necessary this more than under Article pro- 63 of Appellant apparently Vernon’s Texas Penal Code. overlooks the Ann.C.C.P., 642, vision of Art. Vernon’s indictment, presented, read The as was to which reads: present in with our jury the conformance ap- procedural requirement and thereafter “Order of in trial proceeding to the as pellant proof by waived witnesses he was prior by stipulating that convictions impaneled any “A in crim- jury being felo- person three the the same convicted of proceed action, in inal cause shall the being con- capital, final a nies less each than the following order: viction. “1, information The indictment or prior two held that where This court has by the jury read the attor- shall be to alleged in an indictment felony convictions ney prosecuting.” proof of commis proved in addition to were felony defendant was charged, of the sion 535, State, In Tex.Cr.R. v. Redding 159 imprisonment as life properly sentenced to that ac- 811, held an this court 265 S.W.2d proof criminal, notwithstanding an habitual the process under due cused was not denied par Ex felony conviction. prior of third a the Constitution Fourteenth Amendment-to 198, Bonds, 185 S.W.2d te 148 Tex.Cr.R. 171, State, the indictment 247 because 984; Tex.Cr.R. States White v. 157 the United of State, Tex.Cr.R. 396; 171 May en- prior S.W.2d v. convictions to against him alleging State, 924; 155 497, v. 350 S.W.2d the habitual punishment under the Johnson hance ap 325, 180. Thus 235 Tex.Cr.R. S.W.2d V.A.P.C., 63, read statute, was criminal Art. without merit. pellant’s contention is for opinion motion jury. on to In the the rehearing, we said: exception. of bills are no formal There do not re- of error claims remaining The required to prior offenses were “The reversible error. flect per- we can proven, and plead be and constitution- deprivation of no ceive of sufficient the evidence to Finding which have these statutes rights by al verdict, support and no reversible error the years.” many in for existence been judgment is affirmed. appearing, the Finley in again followed was holding This MOTION ON APPELLANT’S 458, State, 278 161 S.W.2d v. Tex.Cr.R. FOR REHEARING 864. DICE, Commissioner. is overruled. rehearing motion The for in our that complains Appellant by approved the Opinion Court not didwe submission original on
opinion