Clark v. State

72 S.W.2d 1091

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Clark v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 119 Tex. Crim. 50 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided June 20, 1934·No. No. 16897·Published

Opinion

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty assessed at .confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment appears regular and properly presented. The record is before this court without bills of exception or statement of facts.

A motion for a continuance was made, but in the absence of the evidence upon which the conviction is based, the action of the trial court will be binding upon this court.

The motion for new trial presents nothing that would justify overturning the judgment.

The judgment and sentence are regular.

Perceiving no error, the judgment is affirmed.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty assessed at .confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment appears regular and properly presented. The record is before this court without bills of exception or statement of facts.

A motion for a continuance was made, but in the absence of the evidence upon which the conviction is based, the action of the trial court will be binding upon this court.

The motion for new trial presents nothing that would justify overturning the judgment.

The judgment and sentence are regular.

Perceiving no error, the judgment is affirmed.

Clark v. State, 72 S.W.2d 1091 (Tex. 1934).

Pincite

72 S.W.2d 1091 (Clark v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.