Burgess v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Burgess v. State

49 S.W.2d 446, 120 Tex. Crim. 45, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 141

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 24, 1932

DocketNo. 15120.

StatusPublished

This text of 49 S.W.2d 446 (Burgess 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

Burgess v. State, 49 S.W.2d 446, 120 Tex. Crim. 45, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 141 (Tex. 1932).

Pincite

Opinions

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— The offense is burglary; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for eight years.

The indictment appears regular and regularly filed. The facts before the trial court are not brought up for review. There are exceptions to the charge of the court and bills of exception asserting that there was a variance between the allegation and proof. The sufficiency of the evidence is also challenged by a special charge. There are other exceptions to the charge not necessary to describe; also exceptions to the reception of the evidence. In the absence of a statement of facts showing the evidence that was before the trial court, it -is not possible for this court to determine whether the complaints made are meritorious or not. In the absence of a record showing the contrary, the presumption of regularity of the action of the trial court must prevail.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— The offense is burglary; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for eight years.

The indictment appears regular and regularly filed. The facts before the trial court are not brought up for review. There are exceptions to the charge of the court and bills of exception asserting that there was a variance between the allegation and proof. The sufficiency of the evidence is also challenged by a special charge. There are other exceptions to the charge not necessary to describe; also exceptions to the reception of the evidence. In the absence of a statement of facts showing the evidence that was before the trial court, it -is not possible for this court to determine whether the complaints made are meritorious or not. In the absence of a record showing the contrary, the presumption of regularity of the action of the trial court must prevail.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 S.W.2d 446, 120 Tex. Crim. 45, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-state-texcrimapp-1932.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack