Case Name: Joe Skelton v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-11-06
Citations: 84 Tex. Crim. 193
Docket Number: No. 5164
Parties: Joe Skelton v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
Joe Skelton v. The State.
No. 5164.
Decided November 6, 1918.
Theft of Hog—3?lea of Guilty—Suspended Sentence.
Where, upon trial of theft of hog, under a plea of guilty, defendant filed a plea for suspended sentence, which the jury did not award, although the evidence showed that he had never been charged with any violation of the law prior to this, etc., there is no ground for reversal as the matter was peculiarly within the province of the jury.
Appeal from the District Court of Walker. Tried below before the Hon. E. A. Berry.
Appeal from a conviction of theft of a hog; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of hog theft under a plea of guilty and allotted two years in the penitentiary.
He filed a plea for suspended sentence, which the jury did not award. The only ground of the motion for new trial is based upon the failure or refusal of the jury to award the suspended sentence. The evidence is clear that he had never been charged with any violation of the law prior to this, and had borne a good reputation. The jury saw proper not to award him the suspended sentence, and this court would not be justified in reversing for this reason. It is a matter peculiarly within the province of the jury to decide, and having decided it this court would not feel authorized to reverse their finding.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.