Case ID: tex-crim_74/html/0480-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PEENDEEGAST, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. D. Pullum v. The State.
    No. 3193.
    Decided June 24, 1914.
    
    Swindling—Indeterminate Sentence Law.
    Where the court below did not comply with the indeterminate sentence law, the sentence will be reformed and the judgment affirmed.
    
      Appeal from the District Court of Nacogdoches. Tried below before the Hon. L. D. Guinn.
    Appeal from a conviction of swindling; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      Q. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   PEENDEEGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for swindling.

There is no statement of facts. The indictment follows the statute and the approved forms, and properly charges the offense.

The sentence does not comply with the indeterminate sentence law. It should have done so. The cleric of this court will enter the proper order of sentence, and this judgment as reformed will be affirmed.

Affirmed.