Case Name: Daniel Martinez v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-11-20
Citations: 84 Tex. Crim. 261
Docket Number: No. 5197
Parties: Daniel Martinez v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
Daniel Martinez v. The State.
No. 5197.
Decided November 20, 1918.
Rehearing denied January 15, 1919.
Local Option—Statement of Facts—Fractice on Appeal.
In the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exception, the suggestion that the judgment is contrary to "law and the evidence, can not be considered; however, the statement of facts, having been left out of the record "by inadvertence and was afterwards supplied, it is now here considered, and while the evidence was somewhat contradictory, it is, nevertheless, sufficient to sustain the conviction, and the judgment is affirmed and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Appeal from the District Court of El Paso. Tried below before the Hon. W. D. Howe.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of thé local option law; penalty, two years and six months imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
J. B. Larrazola and P. E. Gardner, for appellant.
On question of insufficiency of the evidence: State v. Webb, 41 Texas, 67; Owens v. State, 35 id., 361; Carter v. State, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 110, 170 S. W. Rep., 739.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for violation of the prohibition law. There is neither a statement of facts nor a bill of exceptions. The only question suggested in the motion for new trial is that the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence, which, of course, can not be considered in the absence of a statement of facts.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.