Case Name: KING v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1953-02-04
Citations: 255 S.W.2d 879
Docket Number: No. 26222
Parties: KING v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 255
Pages: 879–881

Head Matter:
KING v. STATE.
No. 26222.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 4, 1953.
Rehearing Denied March 11, 1953.
J. M. Parker, Gorman, for appellant.
George. P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Judge.
The offense is the sale of beer in a dry area; the punishment, six months in jail and a fine of $50,0.
No statement of facts on the trial on the merits or bills of exception appears in the record.
Appellant's amended motion for new trial sought for the first time to raise a question as to the validity of-the order of transfer from the county court to the district court..
In Abbott v. State, 42 Tex.Cr.R. 8, 57 S.W. 97, 98, we- said:
"Appellant's first complaint in his motion for new trial is that the court had no jurisdiction'to try the case, because of a failure to make a proper and legal transfer 'of the indictment from the -district to the county court. This obj ection cannot be .urged for the first time 'in motion for new trial, but should be made by plea to the jurisdiction. This exact question was decided .by us in Bonner, v. State, 38 Tex.Cr.R. 599, 44 S.W. 172. We there held that where ,defendant has pleaded, to the indictment, . without motion. to. quash or plea to the jurisdiction, it is too late to- interpose such objection, by motion in arrest of. judgment, and clearly it would be too late on motion 'for new trial."'
. This, we think,, disposes of appellant's attack upon the order of transfer from the county court to the district court. This is a question that should have been raised before announcement and cannot be raised for the first time on motion for new trial.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. .