Bailey v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Bailey v. State

225 S.W. 515, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 498

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bailey v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 97 Tex. Crim. 312 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided November 24, 1920·No. No. 5987·Published

Opinion

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of theft, and allotted ten years confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, and, so far as the record is concerned, it presents no sufficient reason why the judgment should be reversed, and in fact presents no revisable error in the absence of the evidence and bills of exception.

•. The judgment will be affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of theft, and allotted ten years confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, and, so far as the record is concerned, it presents no sufficient reason why the judgment should be reversed, and in fact presents no revisable error in the absence of the evidence and bills of exception.

•. The judgment will be affirmed.

Bailey v. State, 225 S.W. 515, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 498 (Tex. 1920).

Pincite

225 S.W. 515 (Bailey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.