Armstrong v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Armstrong v. State

224 S.W. 1109, 88 Tex. Crim. 68, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 349

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 27, 1920

DocketNo. 5914.

StatusPublished

This text of 224 S.W. 1109 (Armstrong v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. State, 224 S.W. 1109, 88 Tex. Crim. 68, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 349 (Tex. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Camp County, of unlawfully selling spirituous, vinous and malt liquors, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

*69 An examination of the record discloses that appellant pleaded guilty in due and ancient form, after being admonished by the court of the consequences of said pleading. Thereafter, he filed a motion for a new trial, said motion stating two grounds: (1) Because the verdict was contrary to the law in the case; and (2), because the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence in the case. This motion was overruled, and the appellant gave notice of appeal, and brings this case before this Court without statements of facts, bills of exception, or brief.

Finding nothing in the record to justify a reversal of the case, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.

Affirmed,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Camp County, of unlawfully selling spirituous, vinous and malt liquors, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

*69 An examination of the record discloses that appellant pleaded guilty in due and ancient form, after being admonished by the court of the consequences of said pleading. Thereafter, he filed a motion for a new trial, said motion stating two grounds: (1) Because the verdict was contrary to the law in the case; and (2), because the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence in the case. This motion was overruled, and the appellant gave notice of appeal, and brings this case before this Court without statements of facts, bills of exception, or brief.

Finding nothing in the record to justify a reversal of the case, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.

Affirmed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 S.W. 1109, 88 Tex. Crim. 68, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-state-texcrimapp-1920.