Beebe v. State

271 S.W. 97, 99 Tex. Crim. 638, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 286
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 1, 1925
DocketNo. 9328.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 271 S.W. 97 (Beebe 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
Beebe v. State, 271 S.W. 97, 99 Tex. Crim. 638, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 286 (Tex. 1925).

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property of the value of $20.00 and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts appears in the record. We find no error in the indictment, and appellant’s motion to quash same was properly everruled.

Three special charges were requested by appellant, all of which were refused. No exceptions appear to have been reserved to such refusal. Numerous exceptions were taken to the court’s main charge. In the absence of a statement of facts we are not able to appraise the force of these exceptions. They all turn upon the evidence, and this is not before us.

*671 The judgment of the court as contained in the record is erroneous, in that it recites that appellant was adjudged guilty of the offense of “receiving and concealing” there being no such offense against the laws of this state. It further appearing to the court that the indictment correctly charges appellant in the second count thereof with the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property of the value of $200.00 and that said count was properly submitted by the court in his charge to the jury, and that the jury returned a verdict of guilty under said count, the judgment is reformed finding appellant guilty of receiving and concealing stolen property of the value of more than $50.00 and that he be confined in the state penitentiary for a period of two years, and as reformed the judgment is ordered affirmed. Affirmed.

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

Related

Daniel Wayne McLemore v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Rhodes v. State
560 S.W.2d 665 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Hughes v. State
493 S.W.2d 166 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Ex Parte King
240 S.W.2d 777 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
271 S.W. 97, 99 Tex. Crim. 638, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beebe-v-state-texcrimapp-1925.