Hobbs v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hobbs v. State

433 S.W.2d 700

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 13, 1968

DocketNos. 41600, 41601

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 433 S.W.2d 700 (Hobbs 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

Hobbs v. State, 433 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant waived a trial by jury, entered pleas of guilty and executed written judicial confessions. The court found him guilty as charged in the indictment of passing as true a forged instrument in one case and guilty of burglary in the other, and assessed his punishment in the burglary case at 10 years and at 5 years in the Passing case. No effort was made to cumu-late the sentences.

One brief has been filed in both cases and so we consolidate them for the purposes of disposition of these appeals.

Counsel who prepared the brief on appeal was not the counsel at the time the pleas of guilty were entered as shown by the record. In the same, numerous assertions of fact and conclusions of law are set forth; but an examination of the transcription of the court reporter’s notes contained in these two records on appeal which are approved by the trial court fails to reveal any factual basis for the claims asserted. Such contentions are therefore not before this Court for review.

The judgments are affirmed.

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

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant waived a trial by jury, entered pleas of guilty and executed written judicial confessions. The court found him guilty as charged in the indictment of passing as true a forged instrument in one case and guilty of burglary in the other, and assessed his punishment in the burglary case at 10 years and at 5 years in the Passing case. No effort was made to cumu-late the sentences.

One brief has been filed in both cases and so we consolidate them for the purposes of disposition of these appeals.

Counsel who prepared the brief on appeal was not the counsel at the time the pleas of guilty were entered as shown by the record. In the same, numerous assertions of fact and conclusions of law are set forth; but an examination of the transcription of the court reporter’s notes contained in these two records on appeal which are approved by the trial court fails to reveal any factual basis for the claims asserted. Such contentions are therefore not before this Court for review.

The judgments are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 S.W.2d 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobbs-v-state-texcrimapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack