Opinion · Txlaw Texas

ZULPO v. STATE, 415 S.W.2d 653 (Tex.Cr.App. 1967)

Vincent Alfonso ZULPO, Appellant, v. STATE of Tex., Appellee., 415 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967)

Type
Opinion
Court
Txlaw Texas
Jurisdiction
Txlaw
Date
1967-05-10
Topic
general

ZULPO v. STATE, 415 S.W.2d 653 (Tex.Cr.App. 1967) 415 S.W.2d 653 Vincent Alfonso ZULPO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 40232.Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. May 10, 1967.Rehearing Denied June 21, 1967.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed ZULPO v. STATE, 415 S.W.2d 653 (Tex.Cr.App. 1967). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

ZULPO v. STATE,415 S.W.2d 653(Tex.Cr.App. 1967)
415 S.W.2d 653
Vincent Alfonso ZULPO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 40232.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
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
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
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.
ONION, Judge.
(Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part).
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.Page 654