Case ID: tex-crim_104/html/0581-01.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

W. A. Nichols v. The State.
    No. 10279.
    Delivered June 23, 1926.
    Possessing Equipment, Etc. — Plea of Guilty — Properly Received.
    Where an appellant complains that his plea of guilty was induced by persuasion, and was not voluntarily entered, and the trial court qualifies the bill of exception complaining of the matter with the statement that the plea was not entered through any improper influence, appellant is bound by such qualification, and no error is shown.
    Appeal from the District Court of Bowie County. Tried below before the Hon. Hugh Carney, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, penalty one year in • the penitentiary.
    
      Spivey & Williams of Texarkana, for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Robert M. Lyles, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful possession of equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

No statement of facts accompanies the record.

A plea of guilty was entered.

Two bills of exceptions appear in the record. In one of these complaint is made of the receipt of the plea of guilty upon the ground that the appellant was persuaded to make it against his interest. The other bill complains of the introduction of the evidence. The bill touching the plea of guilty, as qualified by the court, fails to show that the plea was entered through improper influence.

The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.