Case Name: Leonard Barrett v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-05-13
Citations: 100 Tex. Crim. 279
Docket Number: No. 8852
Parties: Leonard Barrett v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
Leonard Barrett v. The State.
No. 8852.
Delivered May 13, 1925.
Rehearing denied June 10, 1925.
1. —Transporting Intoxicating Liquor — Suspended Sentence — Age Limit — Statute Construed.
By the terms of Sec. 2, Chap. 61, 1st called session 37th Leg., the benefit of the suspended sentence is denied a person over twenty-five years of age, charged with violation of liquor laws. Age of accused at the time of the trial controls, and not at the time the offense was committed or the indictment returned. Following Kitchen v. State, 267 S. W. 497.
ON BEHEABINti.
2. —-Same—Suspended Sentence — Age of Accused — For Jury. .
Where on a trial for a violation of the liquor law the accused files an application for a suspended sentence and the testimony as to his age being more than twenty-five years at the time of the trial, the issue should be submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions, as was done in the instant case.
Appeal from the District Court of Nacogdoches County. Tried below before the Hon. L. D. Guinn, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for transporting' intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Adams & Moore, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge. —
Defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of transporting intoxicating liquor and asked for a suspended sentence. After hearing the evidence the jury fixed his punishment at one year in the penitentiary but failed to suspend the sentence.
By the terms of Sec. 2d, Chap. 61, 1st Called Session 37th Legislature, the benefit of suspended sentence is denied a person over twenty-five years convicted of the offense for which defendant was being 'tried. Exception was taken to the charge upon the issue of suspended sentence. We do not discuss the point for the reason that defendant was not entitled to have that issue submitted at all. The offense was alleged to have occurred in December 1923, but the case was not tried until March 14, 1924. The evidence shows defendant was born September 26, 1898, _ making him five months and eighteen days over twenty-five years of age at the time of trial. Age at time of trial controls and not at the time the offense was committed or indictment returned. Kitchen v. State, 267 S. W. 497.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.