Case Name: AUSTIN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-02-13
Citations: 200 S.W. 1093
Docket Number: No. 4889
Parties: AUSTIN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 200
Pages: 1093–1094

Head Matter:
AUSTIN v. STATE.
(No. 4889.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 13, 1918.)
Criminal Law <&wkey; 1023(11), 1086(13) — Appeal— Sufficiency of Judgment — Matters to be Shown in Record.
An appeal from a conviction for burglary will be dismissed, where the record contains no sentence, and the judgment recites the return of a verdict finding defendant guilty and assessing his punishment “at -years in the
penitentiary,” and provides that defendant shall be punished as determined by the jury by confinement in the penitentiary “for - years.”
Appeal from District Court, San Jacinto ■ Cbunty; L. B. Hightower, Judge.
Anderson Austin was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary, and allotted four years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The record is in rattier a bad condition. It contains neither a sentence nor a judgment that can be sustained. After setting out the usual formal parts, the judgment recites that the verdict was -received by the court, "and is here now entered upon the minutes' of the court, to wit: 'We the jury find the defendant guilty and assess his punishment at-years in the penitentiary.' " The judgment follows this, and says that defendant shall "be punished as has been determined by the jury by confinement in the penitentiary for - years, and that the state of Texas do have and recover," etc.
The grounds in the motion for new trial allege that defendant was under 17 years of age and hardly responsible for his acts. A teacher states that she had him under her control at school for one term, and for want of sufficient intelligence she was not able to teach him the alphabet. It is also shown by the affidavit of the mother, and there seems to be no question of the fact so far as the motion for new trial is concerned, that the boy was practically an idiot, or at least of very low order of mentality. The court rendering the judgment in this respect adjudicates the fact that defendant is clearly under 17 years of age, and, had he been the judge who tried the case, would have disposed of it under the recent case of McLaren v. State, 199 S. W. 811. It seems, from the statement of the judge, that one judge tried it, and on account of severe illness another judge presided on the hearing of the motion for rehearing. These matters are mentioned, so that upon another trial of the case they may not occur.
The appeal will be dismissed for reasons above given.
©=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests am? Indexes