Grandberry v. State

216 S.W. 164, 86 Tex. Crim. 232, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 385
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 12, 1919
DocketNo. 5549.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 S.W. 164, 86 Tex. Crim. 232, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grandberry-v-state-texcrimapp-1919.