Case ID: tex-crim_101/html/0132-02.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

Newt Miller v. The State.
    No. 9238.
    Delivered June 17, 1925.
    Burglary — New Trial — Properly Refused.
    Where on a trial for burglary, appellant complains in his motion for a new trial that he was not given an opportunity to secure an attorney, and on the hearing of evidence the trial court held that appellant’s contention was not sustained, the action of the court in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.
    Appeal from the District Court of Mitchell County. Tried below before the Hon. W. P. Leslie, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.’
    
      
      W. H. Garrett, for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant is under conviction for burglary with punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

We find only one bill of exceptions in the record. It asserts that appellant was forced to trial without opportunity to secure an attorney. This was made a ground of his motion for new trial, and evidence upon the issue was heard and is brought forward in the bill. We think the testimony does not sustain his complaint, and no error was committed by the court in overruling his motion for new trial based upon this ground.

On the night of September 18th the store of one Riordan was burglarized and eight pistols stolen, one being a German Luger. On Saturday defendant sold this pistol to Buchanan who in turn sold it to Brant. One week later Brant in company with Buchanan went to Riordan’s store to get ammunition for the pistol. Riordan recognized it and identified it by number, after which Brant turned it over to the owner.

Appellant claimed on the trial that he bought the pistol from one Bradshaw. This issue was submitted to the jury who settled it in favor of the State. We see no reason to disturb the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.