Case Name: GILES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-06-09
Citations: 177 S.W. 1167
Docket Number: No. 3590
Parties: GILES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 177
Pages: 1167–1167

Head Matter:
GILES v. STATE.
(No. 3590.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 9, 1915.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 25, 1915.)
1. Indictment and Information <@^196 — Duplicity — Waivee by Eailuee to Move to Quasii.
The contention that one count of the indictment undertook to charge two distinct offenses was waived by failure to move to quash before verdict.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Indictment and Information, Gent. Dig. §§ 628-635; Dec. Dig. <S&wkey;196.]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Obiminal Law &wkey;1097 — Appeal—Statement oe Facts.
Where defendant was convicted of robbery, «. capital offense, and on appeal was entitled to a copy of the notes of the court stenographer, so that his counsel might make out a statement of facts, and the stenographer furnished a complete statement of facts in narrative form, which his counsel refused to file because he claimed that it was not correct in some particulars, there was no deprivation of a statement of facts, so as to require a reversal.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2884, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. &wkey;1097.j
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; W. L. Crawford, Jr., Judge.
. Henry Giles was convicted of robbery, and be appeals.
Affirmed.
C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was convicted of robbery, and prosecutes an appeal on the sole ground that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment; he contending that in one count thereof it undertook to charge two separate and distinct offenses. This contention is not well taken. Green v. State, 147 S. W. 593.
The judgment is affirmed.