Caston v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Caston v. State

238 S.W. 226, 91 Tex. Crim. 252, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 147

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided March 8, 1922·No. No. 6734.·Published

Opinion

MORROW, P. J.

Conviction is for forgery. Punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

No fundamental errors appear. The record contains no bill of exceptions.

The purported statement of facts cannot be considered for the reason that it is not authenticated by agreement with the attorneys or approval of the trial judge. The approval of the trial judge is essential. Vernon’s Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 819, note 22, and cases listed.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

MORROW, P. J.

Conviction is for forgery. Punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

No fundamental errors appear. The record contains no bill of exceptions.

The purported statement of facts cannot be considered for the reason that it is not authenticated by agreement with the attorneys or approval of the trial judge. The approval of the trial judge is essential. Vernon’s Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 819, note 22, and cases listed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Caston v. State, 238 S.W. 226, 91 Tex. Crim. 252, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 147 (Tex. 1922).

Pincite

238 S.W. 226 (Caston v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.