Pullum v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Pullum v. State

168 S.W. 535, 74 Tex. Crim. 480, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 354

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided June 24, 1914·No. No. 3193.·Published

Opinion

PEENDEEGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for swindling.

There is no statement of facts. The indictment follows the statute and the approved forms, and properly charges the offense.

The sentence does not comply with the indeterminate sentence law. It should have done so. The cleric of this court will enter the proper order of sentence, and this judgment as reformed will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PEENDEEGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for swindling.

There is no statement of facts. The indictment follows the statute and the approved forms, and properly charges the offense.

The sentence does not comply with the indeterminate sentence law. It should have done so. The cleric of this court will enter the proper order of sentence, and this judgment as reformed will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Pullum v. State, 168 S.W. 535, 74 Tex. Crim. 480, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 354 (Tex. 1914).

Pincite

168 S.W. 535 (Pullum v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.