Potter v. State

159 S.W. 846, 71 Tex. Crim. 209, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 405
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided June 27, 1913·No. No. 2615.·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

This record is before us without a statement of facts or bill of exceptions. The question involved in the _ suspended sentence law was submitted to the jury. They failed or refused to recommend suspension of the sentence. It is claimed that the court should have, despite the failure of the jury to so find, exercised the power of suspending the sentence. "Under the authority of Roberts v. State, 70 Texas Crim. Rep., 297, decided at the present term of court, there was no error in this proceeding. The court is not authorized to suspend the sentence, except when the jury so find and recommend.

This judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Potter v. State, 159 S.W. 846, 71 Tex. Crim. 209, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 405 (Tex. 1913).

159 S.W. 846 (Potter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. State
187 S.W.2d 400 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1945)
Harper v. State
44 S.W.2d 1110 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Bonds v. State
244 S.W. 382 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Conatser v. State
170 S.W. 314 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Walker v. State
169 S.W. 1156 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Johnson v. State
169 S.W. 1151 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Mills v. State
168 S.W. 88 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Muldrew v. State
166 S.W. 156 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Cook v. State
165 S.W. 573 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Williamson v. State
163 S.W. 435 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
King v. State
162 S.W. 890 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)