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

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 24, 1914

DocketNo. 3193.

StatusPublished

This text of 168 S.W. 535 (Pullum 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.W. 535, 74 Tex. Crim. 480, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullum-v-state-texcrimapp-1914.