Hollis v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hollis v. State

436 S.W.2d 341, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 932

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 29, 1969

DocketNo. 41839

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 436 S.W.2d 341 (Hollis 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

Hollis v. State, 436 S.W.2d 341, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 932 (Tex. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

BELCHER, Judge.

The conviction is for robbery by assault; the punishment was assessed at ten years which was probated.

The appellant did not comply with Section 9 of Article 40.09, Vernon’s Ann.C.C. P., in that he did not file a brief in the trial court “(w)ithin thirty days after approval of the record by the court” or during any additional period which the court authorized setting forth the grounds of error of which he desires to complain on appeal. Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 403 S.W.2d 797; Yarbrough v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 408 S.W.2d 230; Melick v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 [342]*342S.W.2d 412; Dewitt v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 852; Ochoa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 642.

There is no showing of indigency.

Nothing appears in the record which should be considered as unassigned error under Section 13 of Article 40.09, supra.

The judgment is affirmed.

DOUGLAS, J., not participating.

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

OPINION

BELCHER, Judge.

The conviction is for robbery by assault; the punishment was assessed at ten years which was probated.

The appellant did not comply with Section 9 of Article 40.09, Vernon’s Ann.C.C. P., in that he did not file a brief in the trial court “(w)ithin thirty days after approval of the record by the court” or during any additional period which the court authorized setting forth the grounds of error of which he desires to complain on appeal. Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 403 S.W.2d 797; Yarbrough v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 408 S.W.2d 230; Melick v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 [342]*342S.W.2d 412; Dewitt v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 852; Ochoa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 642.

There is no showing of indigency.

Nothing appears in the record which should be considered as unassigned error under Section 13 of Article 40.09, supra.

The judgment is affirmed.

DOUGLAS, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 S.W.2d 341, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollis-v-state-texcrimapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack