OPINION
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ONION, Presiding Judge.On rehearing appellant complains of the statement in this court’s opinion on original submission which in disposing of his first contention stated, “Further, in assessing the punishment the court did not base its decision upon the enhancement portion of the indictment, as it had then been dismissed.”
Appellant’s first contention was that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the enhancement portion of the indictment. It was his claim that he had not been represented by counsel at the time of the formal sentencing in the prior robbery conviction alleged. He offered proof in support of such motion. The motion was overruled. After the verdict of guilty and prior to the hearing on punishment before the court, the State waived and abandoned the enhancement paragraph of the indictment.
The State did, however, over objection, offer the prior robbery conviction as well as a felony conviction from the State of Michigan as appellant’s “prior criminal record.” See Article 37.07, V.A.C.C.P. Thereafter the court assessed punishment *216at life imprisonment. It is for this reason appellant takes issue with the court’s statement.
It should be remembered, however, that appellant’s contention was that the court erred in overruling the motion to quash, not that the court erred in admitting the prior conviction at the penalty stage of the trial.
Further, appellant did not allege nor prove that at the time of the formal sentencing he was indigent and did not waive the right to counsel or was actually deprived of the right to counsel. He testified he had retained counsel at the time of the 1950 robbery trial but that when he was sentenced several days later counsel was not present. He notes the formal sentence was silent as to counsel. His primary allegation is that he was deprived of the right of appeal by the absence of counsel, a complaint he advances for the first time almost 18 years after the occurrence.
In light of the proof offered and the circumstances described, we remain convinced that the court did not err in overruling the motion to quash. Further, the court in assessing punishment did not utilize the provisions of Article 62, V.A.P. C. This was the basis of our statement in the opinion on original submission. We did not intend to leave the impression that the prior robbery conviction was not permitted into evidence or considered by the court at the penalty stage of the trial. In absence of the proof of indigency, lack of waiver, etc., the court did not err in permitting proof of such prior conviction at the penalty stage of the trial. Walling v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 563; Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 463 S.W.2d 449.
Appellant also complains of another statement in this court’s opinion in disposing of his first contention to the effect, “There is no showing in the record that the enhancement portion of the indictment was read to the jury. . . . ” He calls our attention to a numbered page in the transcription of the court reporter’s notes at the guilt stage of the trial which reflects :
“(Mr. Thomas reads the indictment)”
There was no objection or anything else to reflect that the prosecutor violated the provisions of Article 36.01, Sec. 1, V.A.C. C.P.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.