Case Name: LINDLEY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-12-10
Citations: 268 S.W. 167
Docket Number: No. 8913
Parties: LINDLEY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 268
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
LINDLEY v. STATE.
(No. 8913.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 10, 1924.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1925.)
1. Criminal law 1032(2)— Objection that trial was had in ■ court other than that in which indictment was returned heldi too late when first made on appeal.
Under Complete Tex. St. 1920, or Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, arts. _97ff, 'dill, giving criminal district court and criminal district court No. 2, both of Dallas county, concurrent jurisdiction of felony cases, objection that indictment under which defendant was prosecuted in criminal district court had been returned in the criminal district court No. 2 held too late when first made on appeal.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Judges <&wkey;29 — Dockets or minutes need not show reason for judges’ exchange of benches under authority of statute.
Under Complete Tex. St. 1920, or Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 1715, authorizing judges of district court to exchange benches, it is not necessary that dockets or minutes show reason for so doing.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Felix D. Robertson, Judge.
J. M. Lindley was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor for purpose of sale, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Rasbury, Adams & Harrell, of Dallas, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Dallas county of possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary.
The indictment in this case appears to be in conformity with law as is the charge of the court in a case where there is a plea of guilty. It appears from the record that appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. At the time of appellant's trial in the criminal district court of Dallas county he made no complaint, as far as the record shows, of the fact that the indictment had been returned in criminal district court No. 2 of said county, or that Hon. O. A. Pippen, judge of said court, sat on this trial. He attempts to raise these questions in this court for the first time. The contention comes too late. In English v. State (Tex. App.) 18 S. W. 678, cited by appellant, the objections were presented before venue was changed. In articles 97ffi and 97ll, Complete Texas Statutes 1920, or Vernon's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, it appears that criminal district court of Dallas county and criminal district court No. 2 of said county are given concurrent jurisdiction in all felony cases of which either has jurisdiction, and that the judge of either of said criminal district courts of Dallas county may, in his discretion, in the absence of the judge of the other of said courts try and dispose of any cause or causes then pending on the docket of such other court. From a corrected transcript now on file we note that, while this cause was in fact transferred from criminal' district court No. 2 to criminal district court of said county and the transfer noted on the docket, the order was not then extended into the minutes; but this has now been done. The question as to variance in the number is raised too late. Hughey v. State (No. 8033) 265 S. W. 1047, opinion handed down December 3, 1924.
The judgment will be affirmed.
cg^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes