Case ID: tex-ct-app_14/html/0504-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "White, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 2862.]
    Tom McDonald v. The State.
    Practice in court or Appeals—Judgment—Sentence.—By the verdict and judgment in the trial court the appellant was awarded five years in the penitentiary, but by the sentence passed upon him he was allotted only two. This court, finding no other error, and without remanding the ease, reforms the sentence in conformity with the verdict and judgment.
    
      Appeal from the District Court of Wise. Tried below before H. C. Ferguson, Esq., Special Judge.
    The conviction was for theft of horses. The verdict fixed the punishment at a term of five years in the penitentiary, and the judgment accorded with the verdict. The sentence, however, allotted him but two years. There is no occasion for a statement of the evidence.
    
      Hodges & Gordon, for the appellant.
    
      J. H. Burts, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   White, Presiding Judge.

The judgment of the court rendered below in this case is affirmed. By the verdict arid judgment the punishment assessed against defendant was imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of five years. Through inadvertence the judge in pronouncing sentence, or the clerk in entering it, has fixed the period of imprisonment at only two years. The sentence will be reformed so as to make it correspond with the verdict and judgment, and defendant will be confined in the penitentiary for a term of five instead of two years. (Hill v. The State, 10 Texas Ct. App., 673; Code Crim. Proc., Art. 869.)

Affirmed and sentence reformed.

Opinion delivered June 23, 1883.