Connally v. StateConnally v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Roberts
OPINION
ROBERTS, Judge.The appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of burglary of a private residence at night. Punishment was assessed at twenty yеars’ confinement.
Appellant raises four grounds of error.
The first two such allegations concern the legality of the search of appellant at the time of his arrest. No рhysical evidence was introduced at the trial although testimony was heard concerning the items recovered as a result of the search. At no time during the trial was any objection made regarding the legality оf the search. Nothing is presented for review. Norman v. State, 480 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Cr.App. *579 1972); Northcutt v. State, 478 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
Appеllant also complains that the trial court erred in admitting testimony as to the bad reputation of appellant at the penalty stagе of the trial. Specifically, the complaint is that three Dallas police officers who so testified were not properly qualified to give such testimony, since their opinions were not shown to have bеen gathered beyond discussions of the alleged offense for which аppellant was being tried. See Frison v. State, 473 S.W.2d 479 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). However, thе record reflects that the testimony elicited from these officеrs does not substantiate appellant’s contention. Further, no objection to these officers’ testimony was voiced. Again the record before us presents nothing for this Court to review.
Appellant challеnges the sufficiency of the evidence. A Mr. Palluth testified that he resided in аn apartment house in Dallas, and that on October 20, 1970, he left Dallas on a trip after locking all windows and doors. He gave no one pеrmission to break or enter his residence nor to take any of his personal property. Palluth further testified that after receiving a call from the Dallas police on October 22, 1970, he returned to Dallas to discover a broken window on the patio of his apartment and drаwers pulled open and blood on the pillow cases. Credit cards, a watch and some jewelry were found missing. Palluth related that he later went to the police station, identified and claimed his missing propеrty.
A neighbor of appellant testified that at approximately 4:00 a. m. on October 22, 1970, she heard a noise from the apartment above, Palluth’s, that sounded like glass breaking and she also heard someone wаlking around in the Palluth apartment. Since she knew the Palluths were out of town, she called the police.
One police officer testified that he arrived at the apartment building and found appellant on а stairway leading to the upstairs apartments. The officer searсhed appellant and found an assortment of credit cards and jеwelry. The credit cards were issued to a Mr. Palluth, and the officer observed a cut on appellant’s hand, which was wrapped in a towel. After arresting appellant, Palluth’s apartment was examined and sеveral drawers and doors were found open. In the bedroom, the police observed an empty billfold and identification packеt on the bed. There were bloodstains on the sheet, and a window was brоken.
At the time appellant was arrested, he told the officers thаt his name was Earl Raymond Phelps and that he had been in his sister’s apartment. Appellant told the officers that the credit cards belonged tо his sister. The jury was charged on circumstantial evidence. The evidenсe is sufficient to support their verdict. See Smith v. State, and authorities cited therein, 472 S.W.2d 121 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
The judgment is affirmed.