Case Name: Katherine Quisenbury v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-01-23
Citations: 96 Tex. Crim. 583
Docket Number: No. 7964
Parties: Katherine Quisenbury v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 583–585

Head Matter:
Katherine Quisenbury v. The State.
No. 7964.
Decided January 23, 1924.
Rehearing denied March 5, 1924.
1. — Keeping Bawdy House — Plea of Guilty — Motion for New Trial.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of keeping a bawdy house following a plea of guilty, it appeared from the record that at the time the plea was entered the attorney chosen and employed by the appellant was present and took part in the proceedings; that the plea was regularly entered according to the statutes, there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.
2. —Same—Rehearing—Motion for New Trial.
While there is some contention in the motion for a new trial in the instant case that appellant was not guilty, the affidavits of the party whom she names as witnesses, by whom she could establish her innocence of her lack of guilt do not appear in the record, and there was no error in overruling the motion.
3. —Same—Reading Information and Complaint.
We know of no rule that requires the court to read the information or complaint when there is a plea of guilty in a misdemeanor case and the jury is waived and the plea taken by the court. Following Essary v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 596.
Appeal from the County Court at Law of Tarrant. Tried below before the Honorable P. W. Seward.
Appeal from a conviction of keeping bawdy house; penalty, a fine of $200 and confinement in the county jail for twenty days.
The opinion states the case.
Simpson, Moore & Parker, for appellant.
Cited: Theriot v. State, 231 S. W. Rep., 777, and cases cited in opinion.
Tom Garrard and Grover G. Morris, Assistants Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The offense is keeping a bawdy house; punishment fixed at a fine of $200 and confinement in the county jail for a period of twenty days.
There was a plea of guilty entered. A jury was waived. The statement of facts is not brought forward for review.
A motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment was presented asserting that the plea of guilty was entered under a misapprehension of the law and the facts, upon the advice of her attorney to the effect that it was a means of postponing the trial and would not prevent a trial upon the merits at some future time. The motion contains an averment that she had a defense provable by the witnesses, Mrs. T. H. Cole and her husband, T. H. Cole, who would have testified that the house kept by the appellant was not a resort for prostitutes and was not a disorderly house. The motion refers to affidavits of these witnesses which are not found in the record. No reason is given for not having obtained process for the witnesses.
Both the appellant and the county judge testified upon the hearing of the motion, and it appears from the testimony of both that at the time the plea was entered, the attorney chosen and employed by the appellant was present and took part in the proceedings. It further appears from the testimony of the judge that the plea was regularly entered and was in full compliance with the statute. The attorney who represented the appellant did not testify upon the hearing of the motion.
Nothing is found in the record which warrants an interference by this court with the judgment entered.
An affirmance is ordered.
Affirmed.