Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

374 S.W.2d 890

Alvarez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided February 5, 1964

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1964-02-05

Relies on 168 Tex. Crim. 223 - Pitcock v. State · 167 Tex. Crim. 269 - Fancher v. State · 109 Tex. Crim. 101 - Martin v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1964-02-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2011

19 state decisions

120196419701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McDonald, judge.

¶1 The offense is theft of corporeal personal property over the value of $50.00; the punishment, 3 years confinement in the state penitentiary.

¶2 Appellant plead guilty to the offense charged, after being properly admonished as to the consequences of his plea by the Court. The record also reflects that the appellant properly waived a jury trial, through his attorney and in person.

¶3 The appellant relies on Pitcock v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 223, 324 S.W.2d 866, in contending that there is not sufficient evidence to support his conviction on his-plea of guilty.

¶4 In the instant case, after his plea of guilty, appellant was placed on the stand and testified that each and every allegation contained in the indictment was true and correct; that he was the same Hector G. Alvarez named in said indictment, and that he took possession of the tape recorder, over the value of $50.00, without the owner’s consent and with the intent to appropriate it to his own use. He further testified that the theft in question took place in Bexar County, Texas.

¶5*891 We find this testimony of appellant, in conjunction with his plea of guilty, sufficient to support the conviction. The testimony of appellant from the witness stand is a judicial confession and as such needs no corroboration. Martin v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 3 S.W.2d 90; Guerra et al. v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 120, 134 S.W.2d 679; Fancher v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 319 S.W.2d 707; McCormick and Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, Vol. 2, Section 1223.

¶6 The Pitcock case, supra, relied upon by appellant, is easily distinguished from the case at bar, as in that case the appellants plead guilty but did not testify and thus a judicial confession was not present.

¶7 No reversible error appearing the judgment is affirmed.

/374/sw2d/890 · .json · Public domain