Erwin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Erwin v. State

463 S.W.2d 13, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1649

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 10, 1971

Docket43435

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 463 S.W.2d 13 (Erwin 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

Erwin v. State, 463 S.W.2d 13, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1649 (Tex. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment was assessed by a jury at a fine of $100.00.

An examination of the appellant’s brief shows that it contains a statement of the nature of the case and “discussion.” Extraneous offenses and what the defense offered to stipulate during the trial are discussed, along with 22 different references to specific pages in the record. This does not properly assign error as required by Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P. In order to ascertain appellant’s complaint in this matter, it would be necessary for the court to search the entire record; a procedure which was not condoned in McElroy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 223. Appellant complains of general rulings of the trial court and this fails to meet the requirements of Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P. Huffman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 858; Dailey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 346; Keel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 687.

There being no proper assignment of error and nothing contained in the record which we should consider as unassigned error, under Section 13 of said Art. 40.09, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment was assessed by a jury at a fine of $100.00.

An examination of the appellant’s brief shows that it contains a statement of the nature of the case and “discussion.” Extraneous offenses and what the defense offered to stipulate during the trial are discussed, along with 22 different references to specific pages in the record. This does not properly assign error as required by Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P. In order to ascertain appellant’s complaint in this matter, it would be necessary for the court to search the entire record; a procedure which was not condoned in McElroy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 223. Appellant complains of general rulings of the trial court and this fails to meet the requirements of Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P. Huffman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 858; Dailey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 346; Keel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 687.

There being no proper assignment of error and nothing contained in the record which we should consider as unassigned error, under Section 13 of said Art. 40.09, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

463 S.W.2d 13, 1971 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erwin-v-state-texcrimapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack