From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mears v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Nov 5, 1975
529 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)

Opinion

No. 50949.

November 5, 1975.

Appeal from the Criminal District Court, No. 5, Dallas County, Ed Gossett, J.

John E. Rapier (Court-Appointed on appeal only), Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Richard W. Wilhelm and Les Eubanks, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.


OPINION


The offense is felony theft; the punishment, two years.

Appellant pled guilty and entered into a written agreement to stipulate. On appeal appellant contends that his judicial confession was insufficient because it failed to recite that the appellant intended to appropriate the stolen property to the use and benefit of the appellant. The written stipulation, which appellant testified was substantially true and correct, contains no recitation of appellant's intent to appropriate, which is an essential element of the offense denounced by Art. 1410, V.A.P.C.

Art. 1410, supra, reads as follows:
"Theft' is the fraudulent taking of corporeal personal property belonging to another from his possession, or from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and To appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking.' (Emphasis added)

The evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 491 S.W.2d 421.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

DOUGLAS, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Mears v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Nov 5, 1975
529 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)
Case details for

Mears v. State

Case Details

Full title:Dick MEARS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Nov 5, 1975

Citations

529 S.W.2d 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)

Citing Cases

York v. State

Therefore, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction in cause number 57,960.…