Case ID: tex-crim_104/html/0116-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harry Andra v. The State.
    No. 10102.
    Delivered April 14, 1926.
    Theft of Automobile — Charge' of Court — Objections to — No Error Presented.
    Where an objection is raised to the charge of the court, upon the assertion that the evidence failed to authorize such instruction, and no statement of facts appears in the record, manifestly such objection to the charge cannot be appraised.
    
      Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County. Tried below before the Hon. C. A. Pippen, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for theft of an automobile, penalty four years in the penitentiary.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Robt. M. Lyles, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for theft of an automobile over the value of $50. The punishment is four years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

No bills of exception are found in the record, nor is it accompanied by a statement of the facts proven upon the trial. The only exception of any kind is one addressed to a clause of the charge, based upon the assertion that the evidence failed to authorize such instruction. Manifestly without the evidence before us this objection to the charge can not be appraised.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.