Case Name: Robert LEWALLEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1958-02-19
Citations: 313 S.W.2d 293
Docket Number: No. 29499
Parties: Robert LEWALLEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 313
Pages: 293–296

Head Matter:
Robert LEWALLEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 29499.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 19, 1958.
Rehearing Denied April 16, 1958.
Witts, Geary, Hamilton & Brice, by Joseph W. Geary, Jr., and Sessions, Sessions, Hoffman, Ackels & McMahan, by W. R. Sessions, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., William F. Alexander, A. George Biggs and A. D. Jim Bowie, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is felony embezzlement; the punishment, 3 years.
Appellant waived a jury and entered his plea of guilty before the court. The evidence is sufficient to establish that the appellant, acting with another, misapplied and converted the proceeds of a check in the sum of $3,165.85, which sum was the property of the corporation of which he was secretary and general manager.
He urges on this appeal that the trial court erred in assessing a punishment greater than the minimum and says that this Court should review the testimony to determine if it will support a punishment greater than the minimum.
We have consistently held that, if the punishment is within that prescribed by the statute, it is beyond the province of this Court to pass on the question as to whether the evidence is sufficient to support a punishment greater than the minimum. Pineda v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 609, 252 S.W.2d 177, and Manning v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 284 S.W.2d 903.
We overrule appellant's contention that the evidence does not show lack of consent. Carlton, the president of the corporation, testified that he gave the appellant specific instructions as to a disposition of the proceeds of the check and that when such instructions were not followed it was without the consent of the corporation. We also overrule his contention that the Board of Directors of the corporation ratified his act by acquiescence. We are aware of no rule of law which would authorize them to ratify a crime.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.