Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

Rodolfo ARAIZA, Appellant. v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

OPINION

DAVIS, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a conviction of burglary with intent to commit theft. The appellant, after being duly admonished, entered a plea of guilty before the court and punishment was assessed at ten years.

Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.

Appellant made the following judicial admission in writing which was introduced into evidence:

"I Rodolfo Araiza, do confess and further stipulate that on November 22, 1971 in Bexar County, Texas, I did unlawfully by force, break and enter the house of Ernest Gonzales, without his consent, with intent to take corporeal personal peoperty Therein without Ernest Gonzales' consent, and it was my intent To deprive him of same and appropriate same to my use and benefit.'

The judicial confession is sufficient to support the conviction under Article 1.15, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Knight v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 143; East v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 476 S.W.2d 292; Tyler v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 476 S.W.2d 291; Soto v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 456 S.W.2d 389.

No motion for rehearing will be filed by the clerk except by leave of this Court upon a showing of good cause.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ARAIZA v. STATE
(Mar 7, 1973)