[Download] "Thermon Maurice Skillern v. State Texas" by Third District, Austin Court of Appeals of Texas # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Thermon Maurice Skillern v. State Texas
- Author : Third District, Austin Court of Appeals of Texas
- Release Date : January 07, 1994
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 104 KB
Description
This appeal is taken from a conviction for the second-degree felony offense of theft of property having an aggregate value of $20,000 or more.1 Act of May 27, 1985, 69th Leg. R.S., ch. 599, § 1, 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 2244, 2245 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(5)(B), since amended); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.09 (West 1994). Appellant Thermon Maurice Skillern was tried separately from his co-defendants because of his prior conviction. The jury found appellant guilty, and the trial court, finding the enhancement paragraph allegations to be true, assessed punishment at twenty-five years' confinement. Appellant's counsel on appeal advances sixteen points of error and belatedly urges a seventeenth point. Appellant first complains that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment because the face of the instrument showed that venue was in Harris County without allegations of justification for trying the case in Travis County. Appellant next challenges the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1685 of the 71st Legislature adding certain articles to the Texas Insurance Code because the bill contained more than one subject. Tex. Const. art. III, § 35(a). In two other points, appellant attacks the venue provisions of Senate Bill 1685, alleging violations of the ex post facto principles of the federal and state constitutions. Four points of error address evidentiary rulings by the trial court. Another five points attack the trial court's charge to the jury. Three other points challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Lastly, appellant urges consideration of a supplemental point of error claiming that a prior conviction alleged and used for enhancement of punishment was void as a matter of law. We will affirm the conviction.