Case Name: Sullivan Pope v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-15
Citations: 99 Tex. Crim. 642
Docket Number: No. 8870
Parties: Sullivan Pope v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 674–675

Head Matter:
Sullivan Pope v. The State.
No. 8870.
Delivered April 15, 1925.
1. —Selling Intoxicating Liquor — Judgment Reformed.
The judgment not embracing the indeterminate sentence law is now so reformed as to confine defendant in the penitentiary for a term of not less than one, nor more than two years.
2. —Same—Accomplice—Purchaser of Liquor — Is Not.
Since the act of the first C. S. 37th Legislature. Chap'. 61, Subdivision 2, this court has repeatedly held that the purchaser of intoxicating liquor was not an accomplice, regardless of the motive prompting him in making the purchase. Following Lamm v. State and other cases cited.
Appeal from the District Court of Camp County. Tried below before the Hon. R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for selling intoxicating liquor; penalty, two years in the state penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief filed by appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Defendant was convicted for selling intoxica- • ting liquor to one Gibbons. Punishment is two years' confinement in the penitentiary. '
In entering judgment the court overlooked applying the indeterminate sentence law. The judgment is now so reformed as to confine defendant in the penitentiary for a term of not less than one nor more than two years.
Gibbons testified positively to the purchase of whiskey from defendant. Witness had been requested by the sheriff to see if he coulmake the purchase. .The only contention is that this circumstance rendered Gibbons an accomplice witness requiring corroboration. Since the Act of the 1st C. S., 37th Legislature, Chapter 61, Subdivision 2, this court has repeatedly held that the purchaser of intoxicating liquor was not an accomplice, regardless of the motive prompting him in making the purchase. Lamm v. State, 94 Texas Crim. Rep. 560, 252 S. W. 535; Laughlin v. State, 97 Texas Crim. Rep. 370, 260 S. W. 865; Mills v. State, 95 Texas Crim. Rep. 459, 254 S. W. 790; Williams v. State, - Texas Crim. Rep. -, 265 S. W. 166.
As reformed the judgment is ordered affirmed.
Affirmed.