Martini v. State

283 S.W. 505, 104 Tex. Crim. 238, 1926 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 785
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided April 7, 1926·No. No. 10089.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinions

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for possessing equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, punishment is one year in the penitentiary.

Our State’s Attorney moves to strike out the bills of exception because filed too late. The trial court adjourned the 28th day of November. On the 12th day of November appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled, and sixty days from that date given to file the bills. The sixty days expired on the 11th day of January. No order of further extension appears in the record. The bills were not filed until the 30th day of January, which was 19 days after the time granted had expired. The State’s motion must therefore be sustained.

It is unnecessary to review the facts. They are amply sufficient to support the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

Martini v. State, 283 S.W. 505, 104 Tex. Crim. 238, 1926 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 785 (Tex. 1926).

283 S.W. 505 (Martini v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Benson v. State
45 S.W.2d 972 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Wolske v. State
43 S.W.2d 118 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Griffin v. State
31 S.W.2d 812 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Hayes v. State
28 S.W.2d 556 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1930)
King v. State
25 S.W.2d 619 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Weatherly v. State
5 S.W.2d 986 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Jones v. State
294 S.W. 562 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1927)