Woods v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Woods v. State

275 S.W.2d 671, 1955 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2170

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 23, 1955

DocketNo. 27440

StatusPublished

This text of 275 S.W.2d 671 (Woods 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

Woods v. State, 275 S.W.2d 671, 1955 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2170 (Tex. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the possession of marijuana ; the, punishment, ten years.

The record is before us without a statment of facts or bills of exception.

Appellant contends in his brief, if we correctly understand him, that there is a variance between the indictment and the court’s .charge .in this, that the indictment charged that the appellant and three others (naming them) committed the offense, while the charge does not mention the three other persons named in the indictment. He further contends that this judgment cannot stand because there is an absence of any showing in this record that a motion for severance was filed or that the cases against the other accused had been dismissed.

These are novel contentions, but we are not impressed with either of them.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the possession of marijuana ; the, punishment, ten years.

The record is before us without a statment of facts or bills of exception.

Appellant contends in his brief, if we correctly understand him, that there is a variance between the indictment and the court’s .charge .in this, that the indictment charged that the appellant and three others (naming them) committed the offense, while the charge does not mention the three other persons named in the indictment. He further contends that this judgment cannot stand because there is an absence of any showing in this record that a motion for severance was filed or that the cases against the other accused had been dismissed.

These are novel contentions, but we are not impressed with either of them.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 S.W.2d 671, 1955 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-state-texcrimapp-1955.