From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Breeding v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jan 26, 1955
274 S.W.2d 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955)

Summary

explaining that "[t]he presumption prevails that the offense was committed at a time when the punishment assessed was applicable"

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. State

Opinion

No. 27378.

January 26, 1955.

Appeal from the County Court, Baylor County, James F. Lester, J.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.


This is a conviction upon a plea of guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated, a fine of $50 having been assessed.

The record contains no statement of facts or bills of exception.

The presumption prevails that the offense was committed at a time when the punishment assessed was applicable. See Scates v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 274 S.W.2d 833.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.


Summaries of

Breeding v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jan 26, 1955
274 S.W.2d 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955)

explaining that "[t]he presumption prevails that the offense was committed at a time when the punishment assessed was applicable"

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. State

explaining that "[t]he presumption prevails that the offense was committed at a time when the punishment assessed was applicable"

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. State
Case details for

Breeding v. State

Case Details

Full title:Odell BREEDING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Jan 26, 1955

Citations

274 S.W.2d 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955)

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. State

Building on these arguments and observations, the State also asserts that in cases in which an offense is…

Rodriguez v. State

Building on these arguments and observations, the State also asserts that in cases in which an offense is…