Case ID: la_159/html/1063-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRUNOT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(106 So. 566)
    No. 27584.
    STATE v. HUGHES.
    (Nov. 30, 1925.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Criminal law c&wkey;>I 182—Nothing presented on appeal, where no bill of exception,-assignment of error in record, or brief filed-,.and no error ■ patent on face of record.
    Where there is no bill of exception in record, no assignment of error, no error patent on face of record,' and no brief filed, nothing is presented for consideration on appeal.
    Appeal from Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston; Columbus Reid, Judge.
    Shell Hughes was convicted for selling intoxicating liquors in violation of the Hood Act, and he appeals'.
    Affirmed.
    
      Matthew T. Allen, of Amite, for appellant.
    Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., Percy T. Ogden, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. L. Ponder, Dist. Atty., of Amite (E. R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.
   BRUNOT, J.

The appellant was indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for selling intoxicating liquor in violation of the Hood Act (Act No. 39 of Ex.'Sess. 1921). From conviction and sentence he appealed.

There are no bills of exception in the record, no assignments of error, no error patent on the face of the record, and appellant has not filed a brief. Therefore nothing is presented for our consideration. State v. Gebbia, 121 La. 1083, 47 So. 32; State v. Pullen, 130 La. 249, 57 So. 906; State v. William, 130 La. 283, 57 So. 927; State v. Abrams, 151 La. 623, 92 So. 138.

The verdict, judgment, and' sentence are affirmed.