Case Name: Walter Jackson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-10-30
Citations: 84 Tex. Crim. 181
Docket Number: No. 5155
Parties: Walter Jackson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
Walter Jackson v. The State.
No. 5155.
Decided October 30, 1918.
Burglary—Motion for New Trial—Practice on Appeal.
Where the grounds in the motion for new trial are not verified by bills of exception they can not be considered on appeal, in the absence of the statement of facts, and the defendant having pleaded guilty, under a proper warning of the court, the judgment is affirmed.
Appeal from the District Court or Bockwall. Tried below before the Hon. Joel B. Bond.
Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
H. M. Wade, for appellant.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
This conviction was for burglary, the punishment being assessed at three years confinement in the penitentiary.
The record is without a statement of facts or bills of exception. There was a plea of guilty, and the judgment shows a proper warning. To this there seems to have been no objection; at least, if so, it is not brought up in the record. The grounds of the motion for new trial are simply stated as grounds, and are not verified by exceptions, and pertain mainly to the insufficiency of the evidence and the admission of testimony which appellant alleges to have been erroneous. It also alleges appellant had been advised and influenced to plead guilty by a deputy sheriff, who had threatened if he did not do so they would prosecute him in quite a number of cases. These are not verified, and, therefore, can not be considered.
The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.