Soto v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Soto v. State

395 S.W.2d 646

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 17, 1965

DocketNo. 38589

StatusPublished

This text of 395 S.W.2d 646 (Soto 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

Soto v. State, 395 S.W.2d 646 (Tex. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault, the punishment, 25 yc-.rs.

The statement of fact> appearing in the record has not been approved by either the Court or counsel for the State and appellant. In order to be considered by this Court, a statement of facts must be agreed to by counsel for the State and appellant or approved by the trial judge. Works v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 3, 343 S.W.2d 706. See also Article 759a Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

There are no formal bills of exception.

The proceedings appear to be regular, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault, the punishment, 25 yc-.rs.

The statement of fact> appearing in the record has not been approved by either the Court or counsel for the State and appellant. In order to be considered by this Court, a statement of facts must be agreed to by counsel for the State and appellant or approved by the trial judge. Works v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 3, 343 S.W.2d 706. See also Article 759a Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

There are no formal bills of exception.

The proceedings appear to be regular, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 S.W.2d 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-v-state-texcrimapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack