Case ID: sw_277/html/0124-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORB, j.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GONZALES v. STATE.
    (No. 9471.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 11, 1925.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;IOI (5) — Indictment and1 information <&wkey;l37(l) — Difference in numbers placed on indictment held not to affect jurisdiction on transfer or constitute ground for quashing.
    In prosecution for carrying a pistol, that number given indictment by district clerk was not same as-that thereafter placed thereon by clerk of county court to which cause was transferred did not affect jurisdiction of county court or afford ground for quashing indictment.
    Appeal from Willacy County Court; W. H. Mead, Judge.
    Inosencio Gonzales was convicted of carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Decker & Robinson, of Raymondville, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Green-ville, and Nat Gentry, Jr„- Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   LATTIMORB, j.

Prom conviction in' the county court of Willacy county for carrying a pistol, with punishment fixed at a fine of $100, this appeal is taken.

There is no denial of the facts in the case, and evidently the appeal is predicated upon certain legal questions. Discussing appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction:

(1) It appears that the indictment was presented in the district court and was properly ordered transferred to the county court.

(2) The transcript shows that the indictment was given a number by the district clerk, apparently being No. 42.

(3) That the number given indictment by the district clerk is not the same as that thereafter placed on said indictment by the clerk of the county court to which the case was transferred would in no wise seem to affect the jurisdiction of the county court.

(4) None of the above matters afford ground for a motion to quash the indictment, or support the plea to the jurisdiction.

(5) The authorities cited by appellant have no application to the ease made by the facts.

(6) The facts show appellant to have been tried in a court of competent jurisdiction, and to be guilty of the offense charged, and the judgment will be affirmed.