Case Name: CRUMBLEY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-02-10
Citations: 280 S.W. 1064
Docket Number: No. 9867
Parties: CRUMBLEY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 280
Pages: 1064–1064

Head Matter:
CRUMBLEY v. STATE.
(No. 9867.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 10, 1926.
Rehearing Denied March 17, 1926.)
J. P. Cox, of Sherman, for appellant.
Sam D., Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The conviction is for an attempt to pass a forged instrument; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years. A plea of guilty was entered. No complaint is made by bill of exceptions of the rulings of the court.
The sufficiency of the evidence is challenged upon the ground that it does not show a guilty intent. A recital of the evidence is not deemed necessary. The guilty intent was sufficiently established by the confession of the appellant and by direct testimony of others. Moreover, on a plea of guilty, the sufficiency of the evidence is not available except in a case in which the facts adduced are sue!) as to show innocence or in which there is no legal evidence adduced. Primarily, the purpose of the evidence in a plea of guilty is to enable the jury to judge the proper punishment. See Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2, art. 566; Woodall v. State, 126 S. W. 591, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 513; Gipson v. State, 216 S. W. 870, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 364; Bell v. State, 216 S. W. 879, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 363; Williams v. State, 216 S. W. 881, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 366; Taylor v. State, 227 S. W. 679, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 470; Coats v. State, 215 S. W. 856, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 234; Terreto v. State, 215 S. W. 329, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 188; Gumpert v. State, 228 S. W. 237, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 492.
The judgment is affirmed.