Case Name: Henry Giles v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-06-09
Citations: 77 Tex. Crim. 207
Docket Number: No. 3590
Parties: Henry Giles v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
Henry Giles v. The State.
No. 3590.
Decided June 9, 1915.
Rehearing denied June 25, 1915.
1. —Robbery—Indictment—Pleading.
Where, upon trial of robbery, the defendant’s contention that the pleader undertook in one count of the indictment to charge two separate and distinct offenses, was not well taken, there was no error in overruling a motion to quash. Following Green v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 446.
2.—Same—Statement of Facts, Stenographer—Capital Case.
Where defendant was charged with a capital offense, and counsel was appointed to defend him, and the court stenographer made out a full and complete statement of facts in narrative form, and appellant’s counsel refused to file same, or to make out a statement of facts therefrom, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. W. L. Crawford.
Appeal from a conviction of robbery by putting party in fear of life and bodily injury by the use of firearms; penalty, ninety-nine years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
C. C. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of sufficiency of the indictment: Bell v. State, recently decided, and case cited in the opinion.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of robbery, and prosecutes an appeal on the sole ground that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment, he contending that in one count thereof it undertook to charge two separate and distinct offenses. This contention is not well taken. Green v. State, 66 Texas Crim. Rep., 446, 147 S. W. Rep., 593.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.