Holt v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Holt v. State

121 S.W.2d 370, 135 Tex. Crim. 441, 1938 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 762

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 9, 1938

DocketNo. 19911.

StatusPublished

This text of 121 S.W.2d 370 (Holt 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

Holt v. State, 121 S.W.2d 370, 135 Tex. Crim. 441, 1938 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 762 (Tex. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Hawkins, Judge.

Conviction is for violating the Medical Practice Act, punishment being a fine of $100.00 and six months’ imprisonment' in the county jail. (Article 741, subd. 2; Article 742, P. C.)

The record is before this Court without statement of facts or bills of exception, save exception reserved to failure to give certain requested charges. In the absence of a statement of facts it can not be known whether the refusal of said instructions was erroneous.

There appears in the record the following verdict of the jury: “We the jury find the defendant guilty as charged in the information and assess his punishment at $100.00 fine and six months in jail.” In the judgment as it appears in this transcript the verdict was not set out correctly. The judgment will be reformed to show corrected verdict, and judgment in accordance therewith.

As reformed the judgment is affirmed.

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

Hawkins, Judge.

Conviction is for violating the Medical Practice Act, punishment being a fine of $100.00 and six months’ imprisonment' in the county jail. (Article 741, subd. 2; Article 742, P. C.)

The record is before this Court without statement of facts or bills of exception, save exception reserved to failure to give certain requested charges. In the absence of a statement of facts it can not be known whether the refusal of said instructions was erroneous.

There appears in the record the following verdict of the jury: “We the jury find the defendant guilty as charged in the information and assess his punishment at $100.00 fine and six months in jail.” In the judgment as it appears in this transcript the verdict was not set out correctly. The judgment will be reformed to show corrected verdict, and judgment in accordance therewith.

As reformed the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 S.W.2d 370, 135 Tex. Crim. 441, 1938 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holt-v-state-texcrimapp-1938.