Armendariz v. State

Humberto ARMENDARIZ, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee

Armendariz v. State, 396 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965)

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided: November 24, 1965
Docket: No. 38754
Judges: Morrison
Citations: 396 S.W.2d 1321965 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1054

Cited by 5 2 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Morrison

MORRISON, Judge..

The offense is unlawfully carrying a dagger; the punishment, a fine of $100.00.

Trial was before the Court without the intervention of a jury. Officer Southwell testified that the proprietor of the Ritz Bar stopped him as he was traveling in a patrol car, that he entered the bar and found appellant seated with a woman arguing with another patron seated some six stools away, and that he told the other patron to leave the bar and then spoke to appellant. He stated that when he asked appellant to leave he refused to do so and started an argument, at which time he concluded that appellant was intoxicated, placed him under arrest and before putting him in the patrol car searched his person and found an open knife in his right front pants pocket.

Appellant denied that he was intoxicated and stated that he complied with the officer’s order that he leave the bar, but that after he had walked some 40 feet, the officer called him back and retrieved the knife in question from his left pants pocket and that it was closed at the time.

*133 The sole question presented for review is appellant’s contention that the instrument which he was carrying was a pocket knife and not a dagger. A scaled picture of the instrument appears in the record. It is slightly over seven inches in length when open; it is equipped with a double guard, and the blade locks in place when open and is sharpened on both edges for slightly more than an inch from the point.

We have concluded that the trial court did not abuse his discretion in finding that the instrument met the definition contained in Article 1161, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. See Bivens v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 604 , 113 S.W.2d 921 .

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(knife in defendant’s pocket in the locked open position, was a “dagger”)

Commonwealth v. Miller, 497 N.E.2d 29 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986)
(pocketknife in a locked-open position, was a dagger)

Richards v. Commonwealth, 443 S.E.2d 177 (Va. Ct. App. 1994)

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Brantley v. State522 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)
Richards v. Commonwealth443 S.E.2d 177 (Va. Ct. App. 1994)
Commonwealth v. Miller497 N.E.2d 29 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986)
In re A.C.949 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. App. 1997)
In re AC949 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997)

Most recent

In re AC949 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997)
In re A.C.949 S.W.2d 388 (Tex. App. 1997)
Richards v. Commonwealth443 S.E.2d 177 (Va. Ct. App. 1994)
Commonwealth v. Miller497 N.E.2d 29 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986)
Brantley v. State522 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Bivens v. State, 113 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 1938)	5

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list