Case ID: tex-crim_76/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jim Hale v. The State.
    No. 3496.
    Decided April 7, 1915.
    Forgery—Suspension of Sentence—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception —Motion for New Trial.
    Where, upon trial of forgery, defendant pleaded guilty and prayed for a suspension of sentence, which the jury ignored and assessed his punishment at two years confinement in the penitentiary, from which defendant appealed, the judgment must be affirmed in the absence of a statement of facts, motion for new trial and bills of exception; the indictment being sufficient.
    Appeal from the District Court of McLennan. Tried below before the Hon. Richard I. Munroe.
    Appeal from a conviction of forgery; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    Ho brief on file for appellant.
    
      G. G. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   HARPER, Judge.

Indictment was filed against appellant charging him with forgery. When the case was called for trial he entered a plea of guilty, praying that the sentence be suspended. The jury found against him on his plea, asking a suspension of the sentence, and assessed his punishment at two years confinement in the penitentiary. From this judgment appellant gave notice of appeal to this court, but in the record there is no motion for a new trial, no statement of facts, nor any bill of exception. Hnder such circumstances the only question we can review is the sufficiency of the indictment. The indictment is valid and charges the offense of forgery, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.