Home/Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas/Hunt v. State

Hunt v. State

317 S.W.2d 743, 167 Tex. Crim. 51, 1958 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3495
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 29, 1958
Docket30030
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 317 S.W.2d 743 (Hunt 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
Hunt v. State, 317 S.W.2d 743, 167 Tex. Crim. 51, 1958 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3495 (Tex. 1958).

Opinion

DICE, Judge.

Upon a plea of guilty before the court, without a jury, appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area and her punishment assessed at one year in jail and a fine of $500.

After conviction appellant filed an amended motion for new trial in which she alleged that the punishment assessed was unjust, unreasonable and excessive, and that had she known the court would inflict such punishment she would not have entered a plea of guilty. It was further alleged that the judgment of conviction was not supported by any evidence.

The motion was not sworn to or supported by the affidavit of appellant or any person.

The unverified motion was insufficient as a pleading and the court’s action in overruling the same cannot be assigned as error. Vowell v. State, 156 Texas Cr. Rep. 493, 244 S.W. 2d 214, and Williams v. State, 164 Texas Cr. Rep. 137, 296 S.W. 2d 781.

Where an accused enters a plea of guilty in a misdemeanor case it is not necessary that the state introduce evidence showing his guilt. Ex parte Clinnard, 145 Texas Cr. Rep. 460, 169 S.W. 2d 181, and Palomo v. State, 157 Texas Cr. Rep. 442, 249 S.W. 2d 210. We observe however that the statement of facts on file in the cause does reflect that the state introduced sufficient evidence to establish the appellant’s guilt.

*53 It has been the holding of this court that when the punishment assessed is within the limits prescribed by law it is not excessive and it is not within the province of this court to pass on the propriety of such punishment. Palomo v. State, supra; Pineda v. State, 157 Texas Cr. Rep. 609, 252 S.W. 2d 177, and Manning v. State, 162 Texas Cr. Rep. 329, 284 S.W. 2d 903.

Finding no reversible error the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

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

Related

McIntire v. State
698 S.W.2d 652 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Gonzalez v. State
659 S.W.2d 470 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Pierson v. State
614 S.W.2d 102 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Cobbs v. State
495 S.W.2d 900 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Ocker v. State
477 S.W.2d 288 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
David v. State
453 S.W.2d 172 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Fontenot v. State
426 S.W.2d 861 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Sonderup v. State
418 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1967)
McGruder v. State
377 S.W.2d 191 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1964)
Parker v. State
336 S.W.2d 431 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1960)
Gurley v. State
331 S.W.2d 756 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1960)
White v. State
321 S.W.2d 582 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1959)
Cooper v. State
167 Tex. Crim. 205 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
317 S.W.2d 743, 167 Tex. Crim. 51, 1958 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-state-texcrimapp-1958.