Isaacs v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Isaacs v. State

125 S.W. 397, 58 Tex. Crim. 256, 1910 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 99

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 9, 1910

DocketNo. 413.

StatusPublished

This text of 125 S.W. 397 (Isaacs 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

Isaacs v. State, 125 S.W. 397, 58 Tex. Crim. 256, 1910 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 99 (Tex. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

RAMSEY, Judge.

Appellant suffered, in the Criminal District Court of Harris County, on the 27th of September, 1909, a conviction on a charge of burglary, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of five years. There is in the record no statement of the facts, nor any bills of exception.

The motion for new trial complains that there is a variance between the allegations contained in the indictment, and the proof, touching the name of the person whose house is alleged to have been burglarized. We are unable to pass on this question in the absence of a statement of the facts, nor are we authorized to assume from a mere statement of the fact in the motion, that there was in fact such a variance. As presented there is no question which we are authorized to pass on and it must follow that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

Affirmed.

Davidson, Presiding Judge, absent.

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

RAMSEY, Judge.

Appellant suffered, in the Criminal District Court of Harris County, on the 27th of September, 1909, a conviction on a charge of burglary, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of five years. There is in the record no statement of the facts, nor any bills of exception.

The motion for new trial complains that there is a variance between the allegations contained in the indictment, and the proof, touching the name of the person whose house is alleged to have been burglarized. We are unable to pass on this question in the absence of a statement of the facts, nor are we authorized to assume from a mere statement of the fact in the motion, that there was in fact such a variance. As presented there is no question which we are authorized to pass on and it must follow that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

Affirmed.

Davidson, Presiding Judge, absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.W. 397, 58 Tex. Crim. 256, 1910 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaacs-v-state-texcrimapp-1910.