Case Name: RANDOLPH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1954-03-03
Citations: 265 S.W.2d 114
Docket Number: No. 26811
Parties: RANDOLPH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 265
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
RANDOLPH v. STATE.
No. 26811.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 3, 1954.
J. B. Sallas, Crockett, for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
WOODLEY, Judge.
The offense is possession of whisky and wine for the purpose of sale in a dry area;the punishment, a fine of $150. • .
Except as hereinafter mentioned, the record is in the same condition as the records in Ellis v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 265 S.W.2d 113, and Frizzell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 265 S.W.2d 114.
Bill of Exception No. 1 herein is to the same effect as the bill of exception in the cases above referred to and relates to the overruling of appellant's motion for continuance based upon the illness of his attorney.
But unlike the other cases, there are other bills of exception in this record which complain of errors in the trial as showing injury to appellant because he was not represented by counsel.
Bill No. 2 certifies that the motion for continuance was overruled and appellant was forced to trial without counsel; that on the trial the state was permitted to prove that appellant had been twice previously convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor in a dry area; that he had been convicted of possessing whisky in'a dry' area for the purpose of sale, and also that he-had been charged with transporting whisky in a dry area in a case which had been dismissed. - '
Appellant offered no objection to this' testimony, though it was prejudicial and inadmissible.
Had the continuance been granted and appellant been represented by the counsel he had retained, we entertain no doubt that if such prejudicial testimony had been" offered an objection would have been made.
The trial judge having exercised his discretion in overruling appellant's motion for . continuance because of the illness pf his counsel, and having failed,to protect his rights on the trial, by admitting such evidence of extraneous offenses, we conclude that a reversal of the conviction is called for.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.