Burns v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Burns v. State

139 S.W.2d 583, 139 Tex. Crim. 85, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 239

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 20, 1940

DocketNo. 20846.

StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.W.2d 583 (Burns 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

Burns v. State, 139 S.W.2d 583, 139 Tex. Crim. 85, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 239 (Tex. 1940).

Pincite

Opinions

*86 HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

It was charged by complaint and information that on April I, 1939, in Brown County, Texas, appellant sold whisky to J. M. Rich. By proper averments it was alleged that Brown County was dry territory. It was also alleged that appellant had been convicted of an offense of like character on the 20th day of July, 1937. Upon conviction appellant’s punishment was assessed at a fine of $500.00.

There is incorporated in the transcript what is denominated a statement of facts. It is not approved by the trial judge and is not shown to have ever been filed in the trial court. It is not subject to consideration.

A number of bills of exception are found in the record. As qualified no error is manifest. Some cannot be appraised in the absence of the facts.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

*86 HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

It was charged by complaint and information that on April I, 1939, in Brown County, Texas, appellant sold whisky to J. M. Rich. By proper averments it was alleged that Brown County was dry territory. It was also alleged that appellant had been convicted of an offense of like character on the 20th day of July, 1937. Upon conviction appellant’s punishment was assessed at a fine of $500.00.

There is incorporated in the transcript what is denominated a statement of facts. It is not approved by the trial judge and is not shown to have ever been filed in the trial court. It is not subject to consideration.

A number of bills of exception are found in the record. As qualified no error is manifest. Some cannot be appraised in the absence of the facts.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.W.2d 583, 139 Tex. Crim. 85, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-state-texcrimapp-1940.