Case ID: sw2d_117/html/0094-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KRUEGER, Judge.'", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DURHAM v. STATE.
    No. 19710.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 13, 1938.
    Rehearing Denied June 8, 1938.
    Floyd .Harry, of Farmersville, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   KRUEGER, Judge.'

Conviction is for misdemeanor theft; punishment, a fine of $10 and confinement in the county jail for twenty days.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The information is in due form and sufficient to charge the offense.

We note from an inspection of the judgment that the trial was had before the court without the intervention of a jury and that upon appellant’s plea of guilty, the trial judge, entered a finding that he was guilty and assessed the penalty at a fine of $10 and confinement in jail for twenty days. In basing the judgment upon the finding, it appears that in entering the judgment the clerk inadvertently provided that the term of confinement in the county jail should be ten days, whereas if the finding of the court is followed, the judgment would read twenty days as above noted.

The judgment is reformed in order that it may be shown that the punishment assessed against the appellant is a fine of $10 and confinement in the county jail for twenty days. As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

All other matters appearing regular, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant in his motion for a rehearing herein again urges the insufficiency of the testimony as ground for the granting of his motion. Unfortunately there is not brought forward in the record any statement of facts which we could use for a reviewal thereof. Wé are, therefore, unable to know what the facts are, nor can we inform ourselves of their sufficiency.

The motion will therefore be overruled.