McClain v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

McClain v. State

144 S.W.2d 541, 140 Tex. Crim. 241, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 587

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided November 6, 1940·No. No. 21190·Published

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is knowingly passing a forged instrument; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

In passing sentence the court failed to take note of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. See Article 775, C. C. P. Therefore [242]*242the sentence is reformed in order that it may be shown that appellant is condemned to confinement in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than five years.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is knowingly passing a forged instrument; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

In passing sentence the court failed to take note of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. See Article 775, C. C. P. Therefore [242]*242the sentence is reformed in order that it may be shown that appellant is condemned to confinement in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than five years.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

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.

McClain v. State, 144 S.W.2d 541, 140 Tex. Crim. 241, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 587 (Tex. 1940).

Pincite

144 S.W.2d 541 (McClain v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.