Case ID: sw_205/html/0989-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KIMBALL v. STATE.
    (No. 5124.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 23, 1918.)
    Criminal Law <&wkey;1064(l) — Appeal—Review —Plea op Guilty.
    The charge and judgment showing that, before receiving the plea of guilty, on which defendant was convicted, he was admonished of the consequences of his plea, as required by Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 565, and defendant having merely filed a motion for new trial, alleging the judgment and verdict were contrary to the law and evidence, there is nothing to review.
    Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; R. I. Munroe, Judge.
    Oscar Kimball was convicted of theft, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, J.

Upon his plea of guilty appellant was convicted of the theft of an automobile of the value of $400. There is no statement of facts or bill of exceptions. The charge and judgment of the court distinctly show that the appellant was properly admonished of the consequences of a plea of guilty by the court before the court would receive it. Article 565, C. C. P. Appellant merely filed a motion for a new trial, alleging -that the judgment and verdict were contrary to the law and the evidence; hence there is nothing to review.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes