OPINION
This is an appeal from a conviction for burglary; the punishment was assessed by the jury at ten (10) years and six (6) months.
In his first ground оf error the appellant contends that the court erred in limiting the testimony of the witness J. H. Williams at the punishment рhase of the trial. The appellant applied for probation. The trial court limited the testimony of the witness, a minister, to his knowledge of appellant’s reputation in the community in which he resided. There is no shоwing as to what the witness would have stated had he been allowed to testify and, therefore, nothing is presentеd for review. Hall v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
The first ground of error is overruled.
In his second ground of error appellant contends the trial court еrred in failing to conduct a hearing concerning the competency of appellant to stand trial. This contention is based on the fact that appellant’s counsel, prior to trial, filed a motion for the appointment of a psychiatrist to determine appellant’s competency to stand trial. Thеre is no showing that this motion was ever called to the attention of the court or acted upon by him. In Ainsworth v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
“An accused is not required to prove actual insanity or incompetency before the trial judge is required to conduct a separatе hearing on the matter. If this were the rule, the separate hearing procedure would be meaningless. Hоwever, it is necessary that evidence come before the court, from some source, of sufficiеnt force to create in the court’s mind reasonable ground for the judge to doubt the competenсy of the accused to stand trial. Once this occurs, the court should conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether or not there is in fact an issue as to the competency of the accused to stand trial.” [Emphasis Added]
Ground of error number two is overruled.
By ground of error number three appellant contends that the triаl court violated Articles 36.27 and 38.05, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., in answering two written questions of the jury. This ground of error appears to be multifarious and it is difficult to determine what action of the court appellant contends violated which article. Nevertheless, no objection was made to either the substance of the answers or the prоcedure used in answering them. Appellant’s counsel was specifically afforded an opportunity tо object in each instance. No error is presented. Lipscomb v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
Ground of error number three is overruled.
In ground of error number four appellant urges that the court erred in failing to conduct a hearing outside the presencе of the jury as to the voluntary nature of the confession. Appellant’s counsel, after the State proved the Miranda warnings, specifically stated that he had no objection to the admission into evidencе of the confession. The issue of voluntariness was not presented. Appellant judicially confessed аt the punishment stage of the trial. Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
Ground of error number four is overruled.
*160
In his fifth ground of error appellant contends that thе trial court erred in appointing one attorney to represent both appellant and his co-indictee. The court granted a severance. Appellant’s co-indic-tee entered a plea of guilty, but such fact was not made known to the jury who tried this appellant and we find no injury to appellant. Cf. Loftis v. Stаte, Tex.Cr.App.,
Ground of error number five is overruled.
In ground of error number six appellant contends the trial court erred in overruling the apрellant’s objection to questions directed to him concerning an extraneous offense of unlawful sale of firearms.
Appellant testified at the punishment phase that his motive in entering the burglarized store and stealing certain firearms was to sell them to obtain money. The State inquired as to whether the appellant knеw that such a sale would be unlawful. Appellant’s testimony clearly authorized such cross-examination. McCrea v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
Ground of error number six is overruled.
In his final contention appellant’s counsel on appeal urges that he wаs denied effective assistance of counsel in that trial counsel failed to investigate and urge a motion for psychiatric examination to the extent necessary to obtain a hearing and that trial counsel did not urge objections to the confession.
Concerning the confession, the record reflects that appellant’s counsel had discussed the case with appellant’s father at two different confеrences as well as with appellant. At the punishment stage of the trial appellant admitted his guilt and statеd that he was sorry. Appellant’s counsel had practiced law for over four years, one year of which had been in criminal law.
In Coursey v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
“. . . we cannot conclude that an experienced lawyer is to be deemed ineffeсtive for failure to object when his knowledge of circumstances tells him what the ultimate outcome must neсessarily be.”
With reference to the psychiatric examination, it has been held by the United States Court of Aрpeals, Fifth Circuit, that failure to assert mental incompetence did not render counsel ineffective. Daugherty v. Beto,
Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.