Dumas v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Dumas v. State

47 S.W.2d 294, 120 Tex. Crim. 131, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 186

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided February 3, 1932·No. No. 14959·Published

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

— The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

In imposing sentence the court failed to make application of the provisions of the indeterminate sentence law. (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St., art. 775). The sentence is reformed to show that appellant is condemned to confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than two years.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

A ffirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

— The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

In imposing sentence the court failed to make application of the provisions of the indeterminate sentence law. (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St., art. 775). The sentence is reformed to show that appellant is condemned to confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than two years.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

A ffirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Dumas v. State, 47 S.W.2d 294, 120 Tex. Crim. 131, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 186 (Tex. 1932).

Pincite

47 S.W.2d 294 (Dumas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.