Opinion
No. 12523.
Delivered April 3, 1929. Rehearing denied May 8, 1929.
1. — Possessing Intoxicating Liquor — No Statement of Facts or Bills of Exception.
When a record on appeal contains no statement of facts nor bills of exception, and no questions are presented for review the judgment will be affirmed.
ON REHEARING.2. — Same — Validity of Indictment — Raised too Late.
On rehearing appellant for the first time raises the question that the indictment is duplicitous. We see no defect in the indictment in the particular mentioned, but even if it were vulnerable to such attack the objection comes too late after verdict. See Melley v. State, 93 Tex.Crim. Rep. and other cases cited on rehearing.
Appeal from the District Court of McLennan County. Tried below before the Hon. Richard I. Munroe, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, penalty one year in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief filed for appellant.
A. A. Dawson of Canton, State's Attorney, for the State.
Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.
Upon his plea of guilty appellant was given the punishment mentioned. There is in the record no statement of facts or bill of exceptions. The judgment and sentence are in conformity with the law.
No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant predicates a motion for rehearing upon the contention that the indictment is duplicitous, thereby for the first time raising such question. We see no defect in the indictment in the particular mentioned. Even if it were vulnerable to such attack it comes too late after verdict. Melley v. State, 93 Tex.Crim. Rep., 248 S.W. 367; Garner v. State, 100 Tex.Crim. Rep., 272 S.W. 167; Ramsey v. State, 108 Tex.Crim. Rep., 299 S.W. 411.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.