From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rushing v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 17, 1939
127 S.W.2d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 1939)

Opinion

No. 20283.

Delivered March 22, 1939. Rehearing Denied May 17, 1939.

Appeal — Affirmance.

Where the indictment appeared to be in proper form, all proceedings seemed to be regular, and the record before the Court of Criminal Appeals contained neither a statement of facts or bills of exception, conviction was affirmed.

Appeal from District Court of Nolan County. Hon. A. S. Mauzey, Judge.

Appeal from conviction for passing a forged instrument; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for three years.

Affirmed.

The opinion states the case.

Chas. L. Nunn, of Sweetwater, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.


The appellant was convicted of passing a forged instrument, and was by the jury awarded three years confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment appears to be in proper form, and all proceedings herein seem to be regular, and we have no other alternative than to affirm the judgment, which is accordingly done.

ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING.


The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. We have re-examined the record in the light of appellant's motion for rehearing and fail to find that error is presented.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.


Summaries of

Rushing v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 17, 1939
127 S.W.2d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 1939)
Case details for

Rushing v. State

Case Details

Full title:CLOVIS RUSHING v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: May 17, 1939

Citations

127 S.W.2d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 1939)
127 S.W.2d 900