Beddingfield v. State

93 S.W.2d 738, 130 Tex. Crim. 235, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 175
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 22, 1936
DocketNo. 18349.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 93 S.W.2d 738 (Beddingfield 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
Beddingfield v. State, 93 S.W.2d 738, 130 Tex. Crim. 235, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 175 (Tex. 1936).

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

We find in the record an affidavit on the part of appellant to the effect that he was unable to pay for a statement of facts or give security therefor. There is nothing in the record to show that said affidavit was called to the attention of the trial judge. It follows that a reversal of the judgment on the ground that appellant has been deprived of a statement of facts would not be warranted.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

Related

Stockman v. State
120 S.W.2d 267 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Bruce v. State
113 S.W.2d 538 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Moore v. State
104 S.W.2d 862 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Fulton v. State
101 S.W.2d 251 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 S.W.2d 738, 130 Tex. Crim. 235, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beddingfield-v-state-texcrimapp-1936.