Wartelsky v. State
This text of 44 S.W. 510 (Wartelsky 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.
Opinion
Appellant was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals.
The statement of facts before us fails to show or even intimate that the local option law was in force at the time and place where the offense is alleged to have occurred. For this reason the judgment must be reversed.
There is a statement in the record purporting to be signed by the attorneys of the appellant, withdrawing the appeal. Under the rule followed by this court, and which we think is the only safe and correct one, the appellant alone will be permitted to withdraw his appeal; hence we have not regarded this statement found in the record. Because the ■evidence does not show any local option law in force under which appellant could have been convicted, tire judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
44 S.W. 510, 38 Tex. Crim. 629, 1898 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wartelsky-v-state-texcrimapp-1898.