Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

468 S.W.2d 801

McNeese v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1971-06-02

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1986

8 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Said defendant in person under oath together with his counsel and the attorney representing the State of Texas further agrees and stipulates that he, the said defendant, is the identical person named in the indictment in the above styled and numbered cause and that all the acts and allegations in said indictment (count no. one (1) of said Indictment) charging the offense of Sale of a Narcotic Drug, to-wit: Heroin are true and correct . . . ””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Aquino v. State, Adam v. State

Relies on McNeese v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1971-06-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

¶2 The appeal is from a conviction jEor burglary with intent to commit theft; the punishment was assessed by the court at four years.

¶3 After being duly admonished, the appellant waived a jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court and made an application for probation. He agreed in writing to waive the confrontation of witnesses and agreed to the introduction of affidavits, written statements of witnesses and other documentary evidence as provided for in Article 1.15, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

¶4 The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged.

¶5 The appellant’s affidavit which was admitted into evidence contained, among other things, the following:

“ … the said defendant is the identical person named in the indictment' in the above styled and numbered cause and that all the acts and allegations in said indictment charging the offense of Burglary With Intent To Commit Theft are true and correct, and that the acts therein occurred in Bexar County, Texas.”

¶6 He also agreed in the stipulation that some five exhibits were true and correct and that he was the identifical person referred to in the exhibits.

¶7 Affidavits which were introduced into evidence reflect that the appellant was seen coming from the house of the injured party with a television set and his fingerprints were found on a whiskey bottle inside the house. It was also shown by affidavit that the house was broken into and the television set was taken without the consent of the owner.

¶8 The contentions in this case are the same as those presented in McNeese v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 800 (against this appellant), and were answered adversely to him. For the reasons stated therein, the contentions are overruled.

¶9 The judgment is affirmed.

/468/sw2d/801 · .json · Public domain