Case ID: tex-crim_102/html/0076-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Earl Thurman v. The State.
    No. 9869.
    Delivered Nov. 4, 1925.
    1. —Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor — New Trial — Newly Discovered " Evidence — Cannot be Considered.
    Where a record is brought forward without either a statement of facts or bill of exception, appellant’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence discloses nothing for review.
    2. —Same—Sentence—Incorrect—Reformed.
    -Where' the sentence set- out in the transcript recites that appellant wag found guilty, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary -for not less than one, nor more than’ two years, same is now corrected to read, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary, to conform to the verdict and judgment, and as reformed, the judgment will be affirmed.
    Appeal from the District Court of Grayson County. Tried below before the Hon. F. E. Wilcox, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, penalty two years in the penitentiary.
    No brief filed by appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Grayson County of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. The motion for new trial, based on newly discovered evidence, was overruled but nothing in the record manifests the taking of any exception to the action of the court in this particular; nor could we know the materiality of the newly discovered evidence in view of the fact that there is no statement of the facts adduced on the trial of the case.

The punishment imposed upon appellant by sentence recites that his punishment had been assessed by the verdict of the jury at confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than two years. This recitation of the sentence is incorrect. Appellant had been found guilty and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary. The sentence will be corrected to conform to the verdict and judgment, and as reformed the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.