Case Name: ORTEZ v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-24
Citations: 276 S.W. 236
Docket Number: No. 9334
Parties: ORTEZ v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 276
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
ORTEZ v. STATE.
(No. 9334.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 24, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 21, 1925.)
G. W. Lindsey, of Dallas, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Kaufman county-for the possession of mash, a still, and equipment for the purpose of manufacturing spirituous, vinous, and intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
Appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, no motion to quash having been made. The motion came too late. Melley v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 522, 248 S. W. 367. The motion in arrest suggests that the judgment is not legal because the indictment is insufficient, in that it charges' two separate and distinct offenses in one and the same count. The bill of exceptions complaining of the overruling of this motion is the only one appearing in the record. We perceive no merit in the motion. The indictment charged that—
"Jose Ortez, in the county of Kaufman and state of Texas, did then and there unlawfully possess mash and a still and equipment for the purpose of manufacturing spirituous, vinous and intoxicating liquor," etc.
This apparently charges one transaction, and hence only charges one offense. There is no statement of facts in the record.
We observe that the judgment and sentence recite that appellant is adjudged guilty and sentenced for manufacturing intoxicating liquor. Such carelessness is inexcusable. The court submitted only the second count in the indictment charging the possession of said material. The count charging manufacturing was not submitted. The judgment and sentence will be reformed so as to adjudge and sentence appellant to be guilty of possessing mash, a still, and equipment for manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and as so reformed the judgment will be affirmed.