Case Name: Ike D. Watson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1932-03-02
Citations: 120 Tex. Crim. 278
Docket Number: No. 15146
Parties: Ike D. Watson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
Ike D. Watson v. The State.
No. 15146.
Delivered March 2, 1932.
Rehearing Denied April 6, 1932.
The opinion states the case.
M. L. Bennett, of Normangee, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for- the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
— Conviction is for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, punishment being two years in the penitentiary.
Appellant entered a plea of guilty but made application for a suspended sentence. The court submitted the issue of suspended sentence and advised the jury regarding their option to recommend it. The verdict made no mention of it whatever.
In this court appellant assails the verdict on the ground that the jury failed to dispose of an issue submitted in the court's instructions. The decisions are against appellant's contention. Conatser v. State, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 91, 170 S. W., 314; Bonds v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 394, 244 S. W., 382; Johnson v. State, 74 Texas Crim. Rep., 627, 169 S. W., 1151; Cook v. State, 73 Texas Crim. Rep., 548, 165 S. W., 573; Dawson v. State, 72 Texas Crim. Rép., 68, 161 S. W., 469.
We observe that in pronouncing sentence the court overlooked the indeterminate sentence law and directed that appellant be confined in the penitentiary for two years. The sentence of the court ought to have directed imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than two years.
The sentence will be reformed to comply with the indeterminate sentence law and, as reformed, is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Morrow, P. J., absent.