Grandberry v. State

216 S.W. 164, 86 Tex. Crim. 232, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 385
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided November 12, 1919·No. No. 5549.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

MORROW, Judge.

—The appellant is charged with the unlawful manufacture of intoxicanting liquors. He entered a plea of guilty, and was assessed the lowest penalty. Under these circumstances he is not in position to urge as a ground for reversal the insufficiency of the evidence to prove his guilt. Doane v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 468 ; Shelton v. State, 30 Texas, 431; Woodall v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 513, 126 S. W. Rep., 592; Josef v. State, 26 S. W. Rep., 213. If we were to look to the evidence, however, it is sufficient to sustain the verdict. He admitted that he made whisky, and further proof was not required to show that the liquor was intoxicating. Rutherford v. State, 49 Texas Crim. App., 21.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Grandberry v. State, 216 S.W. 164, 86 Tex. Crim. 232, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 385 (Tex. 1919).

216 S.W. 164 (Grandberry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Conde v. State
77 S.W.2d 684 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1934)
Armstrong v. State
227 S.W. 322 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1921)