Ash v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ash v. State

244 S.W. 1117, 92 Tex. Crim. 593, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 577

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 15, 1922

DocketNo. 7200.

StatusPublished

This text of 244 S.W. 1117 (Ash 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

Ash v. State, 244 S.W. 1117, 92 Tex. Crim. 593, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 577 (Tex. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the County Court of Bexar County for criminal cases of the offense of maintaining a nuisance, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $25.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. We find no fault with the affidavit upon which the prosecution was based. The case seems to have been submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury. There appearing to us to be nothing upon which an attack upon the regularity and sufficiency of the court’s judgment of guilt, can be predicated, and it being our duty to affirm a conviction unless the judgment is in some sufficient way attacked, we are without discretion to do anything else except to direct an affirmance, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the County Court of Bexar County for criminal cases of the offense of maintaining a nuisance, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $25.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. We find no fault with the affidavit upon which the prosecution was based. The case seems to have been submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury. There appearing to us to be nothing upon which an attack upon the regularity and sufficiency of the court’s judgment of guilt, can be predicated, and it being our duty to affirm a conviction unless the judgment is in some sufficient way attacked, we are without discretion to do anything else except to direct an affirmance, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 S.W. 1117, 92 Tex. Crim. 593, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ash-v-state-texcrimapp-1922.