Case Name: DION v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1934-06-20
Citations: 72 S.W.2d 920
Docket Number: No. 16893
Parties: DION v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 72
Pages: 920–920

Head Matter:
DION v. STATE.
No. 16893.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 20, 1934.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
KRUEGER, Judge.
The appellant was tried, áñd convicted of the offense of robbfery, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of twenty-five years.
The facts as disclosed by the record are substantially as follows: On or about the 6th day of .April, 1932, the appellant approached Mack Kennedy, operator of- the Taylor Refining Company at Tyler, Tex., and informed him, the -said Kennedy, that he (Dion) and-his gang had been offérfed $50,000 to blow up the Taylor Refining Compaliy's plant as well ⅝ Mr. Kennedy and Mi-. Roiissey, hut ina&nuch as he (Dion) was a. good friend of Mr. Kennedy he suggested that he (Kennedy) pay him $10,000, which he (Dioii) félt sufe'would be acceptable to his gang... Mr. .Kennedy told the appellant that $10,000 was unreasonable, whereupon appellant suggested perhaps he could induce, his gang to accept $5,000. .The appellant also informed Kennedy that'if he had any doubt about what he (appellant) had told him to call a certain number at Dallas and ask for Mr. Btírnett. Mr. Kennedy then called the number and asked for Mr: B.urnett, who told Kennedy that he knew Dion and his bunch and they would do what Dion said they would do. Mr. Kennedy became alárined at the threat, believing himself in danger of losing his life or suffering serious bodily injury and also fearing that they would destroy the refinery unless he complied with the appellant's demand, to avoid which Kennedy finally paid $2,500 to the appellant. The appellant admitted receiving the $2,500 from Kennedy, but contends-that said amount was given to him by Kennedy with which to purchase "hot" oil for the refinery.
There is not an approved bill of exception in the record. The motion for new trial is not sworn to and no objections were made to any testimony or to the court's charge. Hence, there is nothing for this court 'to consider except the sufficiency of the testimony to warrant a conviction. We have carefully reviewed the statement of facts and reach the conclusion that the testimony is amply sufficient to justify the conviction.
N.o reversible error appearing in the rec- ord, the judgment of the trial cqurt is in all things affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court :of Criminal Appeals and ap- - proved by the court. '