Sullivan v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Sullivan v. State

377 S.W.2d 952, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 939

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 22, 1964

Docket36821

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 377 S.W.2d 952 (Sullivan 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

Sullivan v. State, 377 S.W.2d 952, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 939 (Tex. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

McDonald, judge.

The offense is Carrying a Pistol; the punishment, a fine of $500.00.

There are no formal bills of exception, and no brief has been filed on appellant’s behalf.

The statement of facts accompanying the record is not certified or approved by the trial judge. It shows on its face that testimony had been started without the reporter after which request was made by appellant’s counsel and the reporter summoned for the balance of the testimony. The court reporter’s certificate shows that the statement of facts is a true, complete and correct transcript of all of the testimony adduced upon the trial with exception of the first state’s witness, C. G. Trevino. The agreement of counsel for appellant and for the state also recites that it is a true, complete transcript of all the testimony with the exception of the first state’s witness, C. G. Trevino.

It appears from the court reporter’s certificate and the quoted agreement that the statement of facts does not purport to contain all of the evidence adduced on the trial, hence the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is not before us.

For like reason, the informal bills of exception relating to the court’s ruling on the admission of evidence cannot be appraised without a complete statement of facts or other showing that the claimed errors were not waived or cured. Stockman v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 469, 303 S.W.2d 410.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

McDonald, judge.

The offense is Carrying a Pistol; the punishment, a fine of $500.00.

There are no formal bills of exception, and no brief has been filed on appellant’s behalf.

The statement of facts accompanying the record is not certified or approved by the trial judge. It shows on its face that testimony had been started without the reporter after which request was made by appellant’s counsel and the reporter summoned for the balance of the testimony. The court reporter’s certificate shows that the statement of facts is a true, complete and correct transcript of all of the testimony adduced upon the trial with exception of the first state’s witness, C. G. Trevino. The agreement of counsel for appellant and for the state also recites that it is a true, complete transcript of all the testimony with the exception of the first state’s witness, C. G. Trevino.

It appears from the court reporter’s certificate and the quoted agreement that the statement of facts does not purport to contain all of the evidence adduced on the trial, hence the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is not before us.

For like reason, the informal bills of exception relating to the court’s ruling on the admission of evidence cannot be appraised without a complete statement of facts or other showing that the claimed errors were not waived or cured. Stockman v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 469, 303 S.W.2d 410.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 S.W.2d 952, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-state-texcrimapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack