Baldauf v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Baldauf v. State

220 S.W. 550, 87 Tex. Crim. 228, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 177

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 14, 1920

DocketNo. 5788.

StatusPublished

This text of 220 S.W. 550 (Baldauf 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

Baldauf v. State, 220 S.W. 550, 87 Tex. Crim. 228, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 177 (Tex. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

MORROW, Judge.

The appellant is sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for one year upon conviction of the offense of unlawfully “having and keeping” intoxicating liquor in a public place in a locality in which the sale of such liquors was prohibited by the Local Option Prohibition Law. The offense took place in June, 1919, before the recent amendment to Article 16, Section 20, of the Constitution, became effective. The appellant entered a plea of guilty. The only question arising from the record is the legality of the statute upon which the prosecution is founded, which is Chapter 31 of the Acts of the Thirty-fifth Legislature, Fourth Called Session. The validity of this statute, so far as it denounced as unlawful the offense charged, has been upheld by the opinions of this court in the case of Ex parte Fulton, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 149; 215 S. W. Rep., 331; Harper v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 446, 217 S. W. Rep., 703. We deem it unnecessary to review the reasons upon which the validity of the law was sustained. '

There are no questions of practice raised.' The appellant having pleaded guilty and the lowest punishment assessed by the jury, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the'conviction is not in question. Terretto v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 188, 215 S. W. Rep., 330.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MORROW, Judge.

The appellant is sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for one year upon conviction of the offense of unlawfully “having and keeping” intoxicating liquor in a public place in a locality in which the sale of such liquors was prohibited by the Local Option Prohibition Law. The offense took place in June, 1919, before the recent amendment to Article 16, Section 20, of the Constitution, became effective. The appellant entered a plea of guilty. The only question arising from the record is the legality of the statute upon which the prosecution is founded, which is Chapter 31 of the Acts of the Thirty-fifth Legislature, Fourth Called Session. The validity of this statute, so far as it denounced as unlawful the offense charged, has been upheld by the opinions of this court in the case of Ex parte Fulton, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 149; 215 S. W. Rep., 331; Harper v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 446, 217 S. W. Rep., 703. We deem it unnecessary to review the reasons upon which the validity of the law was sustained. '

There are no questions of practice raised.' The appellant having pleaded guilty and the lowest punishment assessed by the jury, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the'conviction is not in question. Terretto v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 188, 215 S. W. Rep., 330.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 S.W. 550, 87 Tex. Crim. 228, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldauf-v-state-texcrimapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack