From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zulpo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 21, 1967
415 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967)

Opinion

No. 40232.

May 10, 1967. Rehearing Denied June 21, 1967.

Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4 Court, Harris County; Dan E. Walton, Judge.

John W. O'Dowd, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Richard M. DeGuerin and Gerald Applewhite, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.


OPINION


The offense is indecent exposure to a child; the punishment, 10 years.

Except for the fact that the exposure was to different girls under 16 years of age, the facts and the grounds of error are not materially different from those before us in the appeal of the same appellant in Zulpo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 415 S.W.2d 650, this day decided. The opinion in the said companion case controls the disposition of this appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.


For the same reasons stated in our opinion in Zulpo v. State, 415 S.W.2d 650, this day decided, Judge MORRISON and this writer concur in the result reached, but we cannot agree that oral stipulations, not in accordance in Article 1.15, C.C.P., may be considered in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence.


Summaries of

Zulpo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 21, 1967
415 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967)
Case details for

Zulpo v. State

Case Details

Full title:Vincent Alfonso ZULPO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Jun 21, 1967

Citations

415 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967)

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. State

55 Tex.Jur.2d, p. 314, and cases cited under Note 9. The question raised differs from that decided in Smith…

Beaty v. State

Oral stipulations will not suffice in cases tried under the provisions of Article 1.15, supra whether the…