Case ID: tex-crim_103/html/0301-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abe Davis v. The State.
    No. 9910.
    Delivered February 24, 1926.
    Theft of Cattle — Plea of Guilty — Properly Received.
    Where appellant in his motion for a new trial avers that the court accepted his plea of guilty without giving him the statutory warning, and no evidence in support of this assertion is presented, and the judgment of the court reciting that such warning was given, this recitation could not be overcome by a mere motion. No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Augustine County. Tried below before the Hon. V. H. Stark, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for theft of cattle, penalty two years in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is theft of cattle, punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

A plea of guilty was entered and evidence heard.

In his motion for a new trial, appellant made an averment that the court accepted the" plea of guilty without warning. We understand from the bill of exceptions, as qualified, that no evidence was offered in suport of this averment. The averment is in conflict with the judgment of the court which contains a recital showing that the statutory requirements with reference to the acceptance of a plea of guilty were fulfilled. This recital could not be overcome by a mere motion. Supporting evidence would be necessary.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed