Lamb v. StateLamb v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Dice
The offense is burglary; the punishment, 2 years.
The state’s testimony shows that, on the date alleged, the appellant and two companions went to the Paducah High School for the purpose of burglarizing the building. When they arrived, appellant and one of his companions entered the building by breaking the lock on the door while the other companion remained in the automоbile. After entering, appellant and his companion took eight typewriters, which were owned by the school district, from the building, and then returned to the automobile in which the three fled.
The indictment charged that the house burglarized was occupied and controlled by one John Chenault who the proof showed was president of the School Board of the Paducah Independent Sсhool District on the date of the burglary.
Appеllant’s sole contention on appeаl is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction because the state failed to prove that the school building was under the control of Chenault, as alleged. Appellant insists that the state’s proof shows that the schoоl bulidng and property was under the control of Alton Pharr, as superintendent of the Independant School District, thus creating a fatal variance between the allegation and the proof as to the person alleged to have bеen in control of the premises burglarized.
With such contention we are unable to agree.
Chenаult, in whom ownership of the premises was laid, testifiеd that the building which was burglarized was under control of the school board.
As a member of the schoоl board, Chenault was one of the speciаl owners of the burglarized premises. Ricks v. State, 41 Tex. Crim. R. 676, 56 S.W. 928. Where property is owned in common or jointly by two or more persons, either as generаl or special owners, ownership may be alleged to be in all or *25either of them. Art. 402, V.A.C.C.P.; 4 Branch’s Ann. P.C. 2d Ed. sеc. 2514, p. 884; Stoddard v. State, 120 Tex. Crim. R. 52, 49 S.W. 2d 748.
Pharr’s connectiоn with the property was in his capacity as sсhool superintendent and he could have only been another special owner of the property. The fact that he testified he did nоt give appellant permission to enter the building did not constitute a fatal variance betwеen the allegation and proof as to the ownership and control of the premises burglarized.
Finding the evidence sufficient to support thе conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the Court.