Case Name: Clyde Rozier v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-11-09
Citations: 90 Tex. Crim. 337
Docket Number: No. 6402
Parties: Clyde Rozier v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 337–339

Head Matter:
Clyde Rozier v. The State.
No. 6402.
Decided November 9, 1921.
Rehearing denied November 30, 1921.
1. — Intoxicating Liquors — Transportation—Indictment.
There was no error in overruling defendant’s motion to quash the indictment on the ground that the State law is in conflict with the Federal law upon the subject of intoxicating liquor. Following Ex Parte Gilmore, 88 „ Texas Crim. Rep., 529.
2. — Same—Motion for New Trial — Duress.
Where appellant claimed duress in his motion for new trial, but the record failed to show any such condition of fact, there was no reversible error. Following Burton v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 201.
3. — Same—Rehearing—General Verdict — Indictment—Amending Sentence.
Conceding the correctness of the proposition that the count in the indictment for “possessing” is bad, it does not follow by any means that the motion for rehearing is good, the record showing a general verdict upon the submission of all counts in the indictment, and that the evidence supported the good count in the indictment. Following Hyroop v. State, 79 Texas Crim. Rep., 150, and the judgment is so amended as to apply the conviction alone to the good count in the indictment.
Appeal from the District Court of Franklin. Tried below before the Honorable R. T. Wilkinson.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquors; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
L. W. Davidson, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Cited cases in opinion.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Conviction was for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor. Punishment one year in penitentiary.
There are no bills of exceptions in the record. Appellant's motion to quash the indictment because our law is in conflict with the Federal law upon the subject of intoxicating liquor was properly overruled. Franklin v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 342, 230 S. W. Rep., 692; Ex parte Gilmore, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 529, 228 S. W. Rep., 199.
Appellant urges in his motion for new trial that the evidence shows he was acting under duress in his connection with the whisky, and therefore this conviction should be set aside. We fail to discover any such duress as will excuse a party for violating the law. Art. 44, Vernon's P. C.; Burton v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 201, 101 S. W. Rep., 226.
The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.