Case Name: Redic Grandberry v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-11-12
Citations: 86 Tex. Crim. 232
Docket Number: No. 5549
Parties: Redic Grandberry v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
Redic Grandberry v. The State.
No. 5549.
Decided November 12, 1919.
Manufacture of Intoxicating Liquors—Plea of Guilty—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully manufacturing intoxicating liquors under the so-called statewide prohibition statute, passed by the fourth called session of the Thirty-fifth Legislature, it appeared from the record that defendant had pleaded guilty and was assessed the lowest punishment, he is not in position to urge the insufficiency of the evidence as a ground for reversal; besides, if a statement of facts is considered the verdict is sustained. Davidson, Presiding Judge, dissenting, holding that the statute is invalid.
Appeal from the District Court of Smith. Tried below before the Hon. J. R. Warren, judge.
Appeal from a conviction of manufacturing intoxicating liquors; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of confession: Pritchard v. State, 77 Texas Crim. Rep., 145, 177 S. W. Rep., 959; Best v. State, 72 Texas Crim. Rep., 201.
On question of estoppel: Figueroa v. State, 71 Texas Crim. Rep., 371.

Opinion:
MORROW, Judge.
—The appellant is charged with the unlawful manufacture of intoxicanting liquors. He entered a plea of guilty, and was assessed the lowest penalty. Under these circumstances he is not in position to urge as a ground for reversal the insufficiency of the evidence to prove his guilt. Doane v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 468 ; Shelton v. State, 30 Texas, 431; Woodall v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 513, 126 S. W. Rep., 592; Josef v. State, 26 S. W. Rep., 213. If we were to look to the evidence, however, it is sufficient to sustain the verdict. He admitted that he made whisky, and further proof was not required to show that the liquor was intoxicating. Rutherford v. State, 49 Texas Crim. App., 21.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.