*2 appellant and another individual entered DOUGLAS, Before ROBERTS and DAL- Super Duper conveniencestore in Hous- LY, JJ. ton. pulled on Harold Hobart and demanded the monеy from the cash OPINION register. They then ordered Hobart to the DOUGLAS, Judge. ground. Hobart heard the tires of a car screech as the robbers left. He The conviction is immediate- aggravated for robbery. ly police. called the Two alleged convictions were for en- hancement. Punishment was assessed at Smith, D. officer, A. a Houstоn police life. on routine patrol on the afternoon of Au- dissenting opinion
Since the gust 24, states that 1975. He observed a speed car jurisdiction, this Court does nоt have away from the Super Duper gave chase question will be discussed first. The stop. make a traffic pursuing After 14, 1976, ment is dated July and the sen- blocks, vehicle for several stopped it and July tence dated 1976. There is no occupants both were ordered out of the car. ten-day period waiver of the to file a mo- Smith оbserved a in the front seat tion for new trial for in Article area and then heard a radio broadcast of V.A.C.C.P. does not con- the robbery. He and other officers took the ready tend that he was not to be sentenced suspects back Super Duper that he was denied the to file a identified Hobart. motion for new trial. Hе does not contend They then searched the bag car and found a that he would have filed motion for new full money. An exhibit which extra through eye- contains presеnted its
The State notations that constitute a evidence. neous testimony and witness film, summary hidden case should concise There was also a It was run not be admitted. Battee v. camera, robbery. entire was made Coulter v. the events a narration of jury. before the *3 Coulter, complained In both Battee and the admission into challenges the Coleman considerably greater of notations were concerning the testimony of the
evidence than in the instant case. detail was argues He that the search money bag. named the defendants as the ones commit to the arrest. not incident ting the offense. While the nota State, (Tex. 403 v. 421 S.W.2d Taylor detail, grеat they were not in as a did tions following expla- the Cr.App.1967), we made facts, they the tend to summarize law: nation of the hearsay they and were the of a has оr arrest stop bona fide “Once a objection. They did not timely proper offense, po the for a traffic been made guilty party. the The appellant name arrest for make additional lice can eyewitness includes an evidence in this case discovered unexpectedly offense other identificаtion, finding all relevant the investigation. of the during the course possession, evidence in physical regard If, a motorist questioning while in the appellant and movie of the flight vehicle, an offi operation the [the] few where the robbery. There are cases criminal violation of a cer sees evidence stronger. Wе guilt evidence of could view, in some other open envelope the that the admission of hold on a more serious probable cause acquires error. notations was not reversible the for that offense charge may arrest State, 299 v. 566 S.W.2d Wilkes an additional thereto1 conduct incident App.1978). (Emphasis physical еvidence.” search for challenges sufficiency the Appellant next original). of the indict- allegation enhancement of the in several recent Taylоr have followed We the enhancement ment. He contends that State, 563 252 v. S.W.2d Duncantell cases. do not are void because paragraphs State, 576 v. Parker (Tex.Cr.App.1978); court, in a in a that he was convicted allege 613 S.W.2d court, court. or in which district district allegation the fails to appellant argues Coleman stoр traffic The view sufficient notice. This give him was discovered valid. A time on burglary at is raised for the first a recent and information sped away from had store that of an enhancement was taken to was obtained. the accused allegation provide is to point, At identified. store and upon by relied prior conviction notiсe appel arrest cause to probable officers had State, 180 422 Bevins v. S.W.2d the State. Taylor could robbery and under lant for alle The enhancement (Tex.Cr.App.1967). physi search for an additional conduct then re specificity gation need not have the search hold that We cal evidence. Coopеr v. count. quired primary proper. State, 837 500 S.W.2d envelope that an is next Complaint indictment described The instant had certain evidence containing number, date, cause convictions prior con- envelope on it. notations state, No motion and offense. county, taken from the bullets taining that Cole We conclude quash was filed. robbery contained used con notice of had sufficient man weapon pistol”, “Su- name, deadly “robbery 574 S.W.2d Prodan victions. See In”, description Dupеr Drive per State, 552 Arce v. (Tex.Cr.App.1978); 100 bookkeeping notations. and certain exhibit s holding today Teamer is in S.W.2d direct conflict with our decision in Ex (Tex.Cr.App.1977), Shields, suprа. decisis should mean (Tex. Stare and Hollins something. Cr.App.1978). Moreover, clearly dis- pro se briefs Appellant has also filed tinguishable from grounds of error. We
urging additional (Tex.Cr.App.1978), in which examined these and find them to be it was held that where the record is silent without merit. as to waiver of time for in Articles no reversible error. The There is Ann.C.C.P., 40.05 аnd Vernon’s it ment is affirmed. presumed would be that the de- fendant waived the time and that sentence ROBERTS, Judge, dissenting. timely pronounced. The record in the *4 majority’s holding I dissent prеsent affirmatively case reflects that jurisdiction to entertain the we intelligent voluntary there was no present appeal. by appellant; waiver of timе therefore pronounced prematurely. the sentence was cites the recent decision of Tex.Cr.App., Parr in dissent in Housewright As stated J.), (Douglas, authority for its hold- State, supra: acquiescence prema- “Procedural law for criminal cases is sentencing present pre- ture Legislature established so that a considering cludes us from this matter on lawyer representing may go any- clients Parr, appeal. supra, direct In it was held where in the State and be assured that that the defendant was not entitled to com- procedure will be the same. See rehearing prema- on motion for Bouie v. 554-555 pronouncement ture of sentencе in violation (Tex.Cr.App.1978)(Dissenting Opinion). 42.03(1), of Article Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. “In present] case the trial [the pronounced sentence without allowing this Although questions writer the sound necеssary days elapse for a Parr, supra, light past of our ness motion for new trial or a motion in arrest decisions, yet case is distin and, addition, judgment, he failed to beсause, Parr, guishable unlike ascertain if the wished to waive premature sentencing was called to this 10-dayperiod. right to this appeal attention while his Court’s days to have 10 to file these motions is pending submission. to our procedure. fundamental Shields, parte (Tex.Cr.App. S.W.2d 670 Woods v. 1976) (Opinion on Motion for App.1976), and authorities therе cited.” Rehearing), a decision which has not been Court, overruled it was held that: stated, appeal For the reasons should premature pro- be dismissed because the prema- “. . .if [the was called to this nouncement sentence pronouncement ture of sentence is made] present appeal Court’s attention while the appeal on direct or the matter is called to therefore, pending, consistent any the attention of this court in Shields, holdings supra; in Ex appeal appeal pending, while the we supra, lack appeal dismissed. If no is taken will be jurisdiction Ac- to entertain this untimely pronounced or if the matter оf cordingly, should be dismissed. appellate sentence is not called to ap- manner on court’s attention
peal, only such voidable sentence will not by habeas to collateral attack
corpus or otherwise.” Ibid at proceeding (Emphasis supplied.)
676.