Holmes v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Holmes v. State

123 S.W.2d 343

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 11, 1939

DocketNo. 19791

StatusPublished

This text of 123 S.W.2d 343 (Holmes 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

Holmes v. State, 123 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

KRUEGER, Judge.

The state, by its district attorney, has ffiled a motion for a rehearing in which it is contended that we erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court. After ■a most careful review of the record in the light of the state’s motion, we remain of the opinion that the cause was properly disposed of on appellant’s motion for a rehearing. This court must confine it•self to the record and cannot decide cases •upon affidavits and other matters dehors the record. If we attempted to do so, we would experience an endless task of trying to decide controversies between the state and the accused which were not supported by the record. See Weeks v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 69, 113 S.W.2d 532; McBride v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 257, 246 S.W. 394; Davidson v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 4 S.W.2d 74.

The state’s motion for a rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The state, by its district attorney, has ffiled a motion for a rehearing in which it is contended that we erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court. After ■a most careful review of the record in the light of the state’s motion, we remain of the opinion that the cause was properly disposed of on appellant’s motion for a rehearing. This court must confine it•self to the record and cannot decide cases •upon affidavits and other matters dehors the record. If we attempted to do so, we would experience an endless task of trying to decide controversies between the state and the accused which were not supported by the record. See Weeks v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 69, 113 S.W.2d 532; McBride v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 257, 246 S.W. 394; Davidson v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 4 S.W.2d 74.

The state’s motion for a rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.W.2d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-state-texcrimapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack