This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of rape; punishment was assessed by a jury at 25 years.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. Suffice it to say that appellant entered the home of prosecutrix upon the pretext of looking at an apartment she had for rent. He then raped her by the use of force and threats.
The record reflects that the offense occurred on March 24, 1966. Appellant was arrested in California two months later and returned to Texas.
On July 10, 1967, jury selection began for the trial of this case and such jury was qualified on the death penalty. At this
The appellant was sent to the Rusk State Hospital where he remained, receiving treatment, until he was certified back to the court as sane on June 20, 1969. His sanity was restored on November 12, 1969.
On December 15, 1969, the state filed a motion to withdraw the notice to seek the death penalty and jury selection began. The appellant was convicted and brings this appeal.
Seven grounds of error are alleged, the first complaining of the trial court's overruling a "Motion for Special Venire and Copy of the Names of All Veniremen Summoned ..."
The state having withdrawn the notice of intent to seek the death penalty, this is not a capital case and we need not consider the alleged error in overruling the motion. Also, since the case became non-capital, there was no requirement to furnish a "copy of the names of all veniremen summoned," pursuant to Article 34.04, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
In Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 748, at page 753, this court stated:
By his second and third contentions, appellant alleges reversible error was committed in his July 1967 trial. He argues that the jury was qualified on the death penalty and his sanity issue as of the date of the offense was not submitted to the jury.
By urging these grounds of error, appellant overlooks the fact that no appeal lies from a judgment rendered in a preliminary trial on the issue of insanity.
Appellant's fourth ground of error asserts that he was placed in "double jeopardy in being put to trial twice for the same offense."
Article 46.02, Section 2(h), V.A.C.C.P., provides:
The fifth and sixth grounds of error complain that the trial court allowed
These contentions fail to comply with Article 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P., and will not be considered. Appellant cites no authority to support these grounds of error and the same are not briefed.
Finally, appellant complains of admission in evidence of his fingerprints taken while in custody during trial.
In Tea v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 453 S.W.2d 179, this court held that:
See also Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 449; Rinehart v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 463 S.W.2d 216; Gordon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 461 S.W.2d 415.
There being no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.