Rudd v. State
Tex. Crim. App.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025Arlie Glenn Gaston v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2022Prible v. Lumpkin 5th Cir.
- 2022Jeffrey Michael Wineberg v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2022Timothy Lee Barnum v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2022Gabriel P. Salas v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2022Oscar Malik King v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2022in Re Jason Eric Lenderman Tex. App.
- 2022Joseph T. Roberts v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2021James Arnaz Randle v. State Tex. App.
- 2021Ex Parte Armando Ramos Tex. App.
Cites 8 cases
- Kirby v. Illinois
- Downey v. State
- Earl v. State
- Davis v. State
- Landers v. State
- Thomas v. State
- McWherter v. State
- Turner v. State
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Roland RUDD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges
- Before ODOM, DAVIS and McCOR-MICK, JJ.
Attorneys
- Wynn G. Stanton, Dallas, court appointed on appeal only, for appellant.
- Henry Wade, Dist. Atty. & Stanley Kee-ton, Dan Clark & Todd Meier, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated robbery. Punishment was assessed at twenty years.
In his first ground of error appellant complains of the lack of counsel at a pre-trial line-up and admission of the in-court identification. Because charges had not been brought against appellant at the time of the line-up, there was no right to counsel. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972); Turner v. State, 614 S.W.2d 144 (4/15/81). Also the complainant had a good view of the robbery in a well-lighted room for about a half hour, and the in-court identification was clearly based on the complainant’s observations at the time of the offense, not at the line-up. The first ground of error is overruled.
The second ground of error argues the indictment was fundamentally defective for failure to allege the elements of theft. Such allegations are not required in an indictment for aggravated robbery. See Earl v. State, 514 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Cr.App.); Davis v. State, 532 S.W.2d 626 (Tex.Cr.App.); McWherter v. State, 607 S.W.2d 531 (Tex.Cr.App.).
Appellant next asserts the trial court commented on the weight of the evidence. No objection was made so nothing is presented for review. Downey v. State, 505 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Cr.App.).
The last ground of error complains of two instances of jury argument. In the first instance the objection was sustained and the jury was instructed to disregard the argument. This removed any harm that may have been created. Thomas v. State, 578 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.Cr.App.). In the second instance objection to the following argument was overruled:
“MR. CLARK: Ladies and gentlemen. I believe there was testimony in the prior phase of the trial that the Defendant said to Robert Lee Miller that he was going to kill him and I submit to you that its’ a reasonable deduction from the evidence since the Defendant was in Robert Lee Miller’s house and threatened to kill him before, that if he got back on the street—
“MR. STANTON: Your Honor, we are going to object to the Assistant District Attorney talking about the deductions from the evidence. That’s the province of the Jury and we object to that.
“THE COURT: Overruled.”
The record shows the complainant did testify as stated by the prosecutor in this argument. It was not error to overrule the objection. The ground of error is without merit.
Appellant is represented by counsel who filed a brief in the case. There is no right to hybrid representation. Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272 (Tex.Cr.App.). The pro se briefs therefore present nothing for review. An examination of the contentions asserted therein reveals no error that should be considered in the interest of justice.
The judgment is affirmed.