Cooke v. State

299 S.W.2d 143, 164 Tex. Crim. 320, 1957 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2101
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 27, 1957
Docket28820
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 299 S.W.2d 143 (Cooke 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
Cooke v. State, 299 S.W.2d 143, 164 Tex. Crim. 320, 1957 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2101 (Tex. 1957).

Opinion

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of passing a forged instrument and, upon a trial before the court on a plea of guilty, was on June 27, 1956, adjudged guilty of said offense and his punishment was assessed at three years in the penitentiary.

On the same day appellant was granted probation, one of the conditions being that he commit no offense against the laws of this state or any other state.

*321 On October 30, 1956, application was made by the sheriff of Reeves County, to whom appellant was required to report under the terms of his probation, alleging appellant’s conviction in the county court of Reeves County, Texas, for swindling with a worthless check on August 7, 1956, and alleging the violation of the terms of probation occurred during the term thereof.

Upon the hearing it was shown that on August 7, 1956, appellant pleaded guilty to the charge by information, filed July 25, 1956, alleging that with intent to defraud he obtained cash and gas by giving a check for $6.10 upon a bank in which he had no funds. The offense was alleged to have been committed on or about July 22, 1956, and the check bore that date.

The trial judge revoked the probation he had granted and pronounced sentence, and appellant gave notice of appeal.

There is no statement of facts upon the trial upon a plea of guilty before the court and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The statement of facts upon the hearing which resulted in the revocation of probation shows no abuse of discretion upon the part of the trial judge. The facts support his finding that the conditions of the probation were violated.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Rhodes v. State
491 S.W.2d 895 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Barnes v. State
467 S.W.2d 437 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Hood v. State
458 S.W.2d 662 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Campbell v. State
456 S.W.2d 918 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Gonzalez v. State
456 S.W.2d 53 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Hulsey v. State
447 S.W.2d 165 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Crawford v. State
435 S.W.2d 148 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
299 S.W.2d 143, 164 Tex. Crim. 320, 1957 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooke-v-state-texcrimapp-1957.