Case ID: sw2d_55/html/1040-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MOBBOW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOLLEY v. STATE.
    No. 15399.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 16, 1932.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1933.
    
      J. Webb Stollenwerck, of Hillsboro, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for tbe State.
   MOBBOW, P. J.

Tbe conviction is under chapter 108, Acts of 41st Legislature (1929) Begular Session (Vernon’s Ann. P. C. art. 1442b) denouncing tbe offense of theft of domestic fowls and prescribing tbe penalty.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty, and tbe jury assessed against bim a penalty at confinement in tbe county jail for 100 days.

The appeal is based upon tbe contention that tbe evidence is insufficient to support tbe verdict. Tbe entry of a plea of guilty* concedes tbe guilt of tbe accused, and tbe purpose of the reception of evidence is to give tbe jury information upon which to measure tbe penalty within tbe terms of tbe law. See Bennett v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 661, 267 S. W. 987; Anderson v. State, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 194, 42 S.W.(2d) 1012. The sufficiency of tbe evidence to show guilt becomes important only when tbe evidence shows tbe innocence of tbe accused. See Phillips v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 189, 268 S. W. 735. Tbe penalty authorized by statute is confinement in the penitentiary for not more than two years, confinement in tbe county jail for not more than 100 days, a fine of not more than $200, or both such fine and imprisonment in jail.

Tbe evidence adduced upon tbe present trial is not regarded as demonstrating tbe innocence of the accused of tbe offense charged.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.