Opelousas v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Opelousas v. State

240 S.W. 1118, 92 Tex. Crim. 32, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 343

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 10, 1922

DocketNo. 6969.

StatusPublished

This text of 240 S.W. 1118 (Opelousas 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

Opelousas v. State, 240 S.W. 1118, 92 Tex. Crim. 32, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 343 (Tex. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Jefferson County of burglary, and his punishment fixed at ten years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. We have examined the indictment which is in two counts, one charging burglary of a private residence and the other burglary of an ordinary house. Each seems to follow the language of the statute. The conviction was for burglary of a private residence. The charge of the court seems to be in conformity with the precedents and to fairly present the law of the case.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Jefferson County of burglary, and his punishment fixed at ten years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. We have examined the indictment which is in two counts, one charging burglary of a private residence and the other burglary of an ordinary house. Each seems to follow the language of the statute. The conviction was for burglary of a private residence. The charge of the court seems to be in conformity with the precedents and to fairly present the law of the case.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 S.W. 1118, 92 Tex. Crim. 32, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opelousas-v-state-texcrimapp-1922.