Case Name: JOHNSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-10-14
Citations: 169 S.W. 1151
Docket Number: No. 3227
Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 169
Pages: 1151–1151

Head Matter:
JOHNSON v. STATE.
(No. 3227.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 14, 1914.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1097*) — Appeal-Presentation for Review.
In the absence of a statement of facts, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty cannot be considered on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 982*) — Suspension of Sentence — Verdict.
Where a verdict of guilty recited “that defendant has never before been convicted of a felony,” but contained no recommendation for suspension of sentence, the court could not suspend sentence.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2500, 2501; Dec. Dig. 982.*]
Appeal from District Court, Collin County ; M. H. Garnett, Judge.
Lou Johnson was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, P. J.
Appellant was convicted for unlawfully pursuing the occupation or business of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory, and her punishment fixed at the lowest prescribed by law.
There is no bill of exceptions nor statement of facts. There are but two questions mentioned in the motion for new trial. The first is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. Of course, in the absence of a statement of facts, this cannot be considered.
The other is, "The court erred in overruling suspension of sentence." The verdict of the jury found the appellant guilty and fixed her punishment, and further, "We further find that the defendant has never before been convicted of a felony in this state or any other state." The suspended sentence law requires that the jury shall recommend the suspension of sentence. The court cannot suspend, unless the jury so recommend in the verdict. This court has so often decided that, in verdicts precisely as this, the court could not suspend sentence that we think it unnecessary to further review the question. We cite only some of the cases. Roberts v. State, 158 S. W. 1003; Potter v. State, 159 S. W. 846; King v. State, 162 S. W. 890.
The judgment is affirmed.