Case ID: sw2d_114/html/0554-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHRISTIAN, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARTIN v. STATE.
    No. 19470.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 9, 1938.
    R. Temple Dickson, of Sweetwater, fpr appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is unlawfully transporting in a dry area malt.liquor containing alcohol in excess of one-half of 1 percentum by volume ; the punishment, a fine of $25.

The statement of facts does not appear to have been filed in the trial court. Hence it is not entitled" to consideration.

The offense charged herein was alleged to have been committed on the 28th day of July, 1937. The trial took place 'on the 4th of August, 1937, which was prior to the effective date of Plouse Bill No. 5, Acts of the Regular Session‘of the 45th-Legis-lature. Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 3 et seq. The prosecution proceeded under section 4 of article 1, chapter 467, General and Speciál Laws passed by the 44th Legislature at the Second Called Session, Vernon’s Ann. P.C. art. 666 — 4, which, among other things, provides that it shall be unlawful to transport in any dry area any liquor containing alcohol in excess of oné-half of 1 percentum by volume. Section-41 of article 1 of the act last mentioned, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 —41, provides a penalty for a violation of any of the provisions of article 1 of said act for which a specific penalty is not provided, the punishment being a fine of not less than $100, nor more than $1,000, or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment. This penalty was applicable in the present case ift view of the fact that the prosecution proceeded under section 4 of article 1, supra. See Austin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 103 S.W.2d 383, 384, and Ex parte Meadows, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 592, 100 S.W.2d 702. The charge of the court authorized a minimum penalty of $25, and, as already observed, the punishment assessed against the appellant was a fine of $25; whereas, under the complaint and information, the minimum penalty could not properly have been less than $100.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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.