Case ID: sw_280/html/1064-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J. HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CRUMBLEY v. STATE.
    (No. 9867.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 10, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied March 17, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>538(3).
    Guilty intent held sufficiently established by confession in prosecution for attempt to pass forged instrument.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 137(7).
    On plea of guilty, sufficiency of evidence is not available unless facts adduced show innocence or there is no legal evidence.
    Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; F.. E. Wilcox, Judge.
    H. D. Crumbley was convicted of an attempt to pass a forged instrument, and Che appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. P. Cox, of Sherman, for appellant.
    Sam D., Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The conviction is for an attempt to pass a forged instrument; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years. A plea of guilty was entered. No complaint is made by bill of exceptions of the rulings of the court.

The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged upon the ground that it does not show a guilty intent. A recital of the evidence is not deemed necessary. The guilty intent was sufficiently established by the confession of the appellant and by direct testimony of others. Moreover, on a plea of guilty, the sufficiency of the evidence is not available except in a case in which the facts adduced are sue!) as to show innocence or in which there is no legal evidence adduced. Primarily, the purpose of the evidence in a plea of guilty is to enable the jury to judge the proper punishment. See Vernon’s Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2, art. 566; Woodall v. State, 126 S. W. 591, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 513; Gipson v. State, 216 S. W. 870, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 364; Bell v. State, 216 S. W. 879, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 363; Williams v. State, 216 S. W. 881, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 366; Taylor v. State, 227 S. W. 679, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 470; Coats v. State, 215 S. W. 856, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 234; Terreto v. State, 215 S. W. 329, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 188; Gumpert v. State, 228 S. W. 237, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 492.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant filed a motion for new trial alleging that he had entered a plea of guilty under a misapprehension of the law, believing if he presented a forged check for payment he would be guilty, although he claims not to have known at the time that it had been forged. No evidence was heard upon the issue when the motion for new trial was presented, or, if so, the record fails to show it. To support his contention he seems to rely on the facts proven at the time he entered a plea of guilty. In our opinion they do not support such contention.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.