Case Name: Earnest Dodson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-03-17
Citations: 76 Tex. Crim. 439
Docket Number: No. 3479
Parties: Earnest Dodson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 439–441

Head Matter:
Earnest Dodson v. The State.
No. 3479.
Decided March 17, 1915.
Rehearing denied April 7, 1915.
1. —Local Option—Plea of Guilty.
Where, upon trial of a violation of the local option law, the defendant waived a jury and pleaded guilty, there was no error in overruling his motion for new trial on the ground to set aside his plea of guilty and try the case upon a plea of not guilty.
2. —Same—Agency—Waiver of Jury.
Where, upon trial of a violation of the local option law, defendant waived a jury and the evidence raised the question of agency, which the court decided against the defendant, there was no error.
3. —Same—Local Option in Porce—Plea of Guilty.
Under a plea of guilty in a misdemeanor case, it is not necessary to introduce evidence, and the contention, raised for the first time in this court, that it was not shown upon trial that local option was in effect in the county of the prosecution can not he considered on appeal.
4. —Same—Statement of Pacts—Motion for New Trial.
Where the matters of fact arising on the motion for new trial were not filed as a statement of facts during the term time of court, the same can not he considered on appeal; hut, even if considered, there was no error in overruling a motion for new trial; besides, there was no complaint made in the motion for new trial that local option was not in force, which could have been .shown even upon the plea of guilty, and a new trial granted.
Appeal from the County Court of Holán. Tried below before the Hon. Jno. H. Cochran, Jr.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
W. E. Ponder, for appellant.
On question of agency: Strickland v. State, 47 S. W. Rep., 720; Harris v. State, 49 Texas Crim. Rep., 233; Givens v. State, 49 id., 267; Dawson v. State, 55 id., 315; Cowley v. State, 72 Texas Crim. Rep., 173, 161 S. W. Rep., 471.
On question of insufficiency of the evidence: Willis v. State, 15 Texas Crim. App., 118; Wyers v. State, 13 id., 57.
Q. 0. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of law in force: Curry v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 475; Morton v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 131; Cantwell v. State, 47 id., 521; Byrd v. State, 51 id., 539; James v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 610, 138 S. W. Rep., 612.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25 and twenty days imprisonment in the county jail.
He plead guilty. On motion for new "trial he moved the court to set aside the plea as entered and hear the case on plea of not guilty. This was refused. As presented this was not error.
The court tried the cause on waiver of jury by appellant. There was some testimony introduced which is found in the record. It raises the question of agency. The court decided this against appellant. In view of the record, we believe the court was justified in finding against this contention.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.