Case ID: sw2d_176/html/0946-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Presiding Judge. GRAVES, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HODGE v. STATE.
    No. 22678.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 15, 1943.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1944.
    Percy Woodard, of Marshall, for appellant.
    Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for possessing for the purpose of sale intoxicating liquor in dry territory; punishment assessed being a fine of five hundred dollars.

Appellant entered his plea of guilty, with the result indicated, hence there is no statement of facts upon the original trial. After the fine was entered against him appellant secured a lawyer, and in a motion for new trial various grounds therefor are alleged. The trial judge heard evidence upon the motion and appellant very frankly admitted that the only thing that “upset” him was the amount of the fine. The trial judge testified upon the hearing of the motion as to the circumstances under which the plea of guilty was entered, and as to the warning given, etc.

We see no reason for disturbing the judgment, and the same is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

GRAVES, Judge.

We can but reiterate what was said in the original opinion herein. Appellant testified that he had in his possession at the time of his arrest 205 pints of home brew beer, 5 quarts of home brew beer, and 10 gallons thereof; that he knew it had alcohol in it. The testimony on the hearing of a motion for a new trial shows a warning of the trial court, an offer of a three days’ postponement if desired to employ an attorney, and a warning of a probably severe penalty. Nevertheless, appellant admitted his guilt, and told the court how he processed his drink with sugar, malts, etc., and again evidenced his desire to plead guilty. Again at such hearing he merely asserted his dissatisfaction with the amount of fine awarded him.

We see no reason to recede from our original opinion.

The motion will therefore be overruled.