Case ID: sw_286/html/1103-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTXMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENTRY v. STATE.
    (No. 10001.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 17, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <@=>l 144(4).
    On appeal from conviction based on plea of guilty of transporting intoxicating liquor, it is presumed that evidence was introduced according to statute, in absence of showing to contrary.
    2. Criminal law <@=>1144(10) — In absence of showing by bill of exceptions that there was no testimony to which argument of district attorney could relate, it will be presumed that trial court thought argument pertinent and proper.
    On appeal from conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor based on plea of guilty, in absence of showing by bill of exceptions that there was no testimony to which argument of district attorney could relate, it will be presumed that trial court thought argument pertinent and proper.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    3. Criminal law <@=>1092(11).
    Bill of exceptions, approval of which was refused by trial court, cannot be considered on appeal.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Hopkins County; J. M. Melson, Judge.
    Tom Gentry was convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquors, and lie appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Ramey & Davidson, of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   LATTXMORE, J.

Conviction in district court of Hopkins county of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant pleaded guilty. In such case the statute requires that evidence shall be introduced. While there is no statement of facts in the case, we must presume the regularity of the procedure in the absence of a showing to the contrary.

The only complaint is of argument of the district attorney. Nothing in the bill of exceptions makes evident to us the fact that there was no testimony before the court to which the argument could be related. In the absence of some such showing in the bill we are compelled to accord to the action of the learned trial court regularity, and that in his opinion the argument was pertinent and proper and called for by the evidence.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant earnestly insists that we erred in refusing to consider a bill of exceptions appearing in the record, which he claims manifests error even in the absence of a statement of facts. Inspection of said bill, which appears to be the only one in the record, shows that the court refused to approve said bill. We are not at liberty to consider the proposition urged by appellant, when presented in a bill under these circumstances.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <S=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes