From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smitham v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Dec 4, 1935
87 S.W.2d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 1935)

Opinion

No. 17757.

Delivered November 13, 1935. Rehearing Denied December 4, 1935.

Robbery.

Conviction for robbery affirmed for reasons set forth in opinion in companion case, No. 17756, Earl Bryant v. State, reported on page 438 of this volume.

Appeal from the District Court of Titus County. Tried below before the Hon. I. N. Williams, Judge.

Appeal from conviction for robbery; penalty, confinement in penitentiary for five years.

Affirmed.

The opinion states the case.

Eddie Roark, of Dallas for appellant.

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


Conviction for robbery; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

This is a companion case to cause No. 17756, Earl Bryant v. State, opinion this day handed down (Reported on page 438 of this volume). The records are practically identical, both in the testimony and in the special charges asked, the one bill of exception presented, and the complaints therein made. For the reasons set forth in the opinion in Bryant v. State, supra, the judgment in the instant case will be also affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.


The motion for rehearing is based upon the same legal proposition as that in the companion case of Bryant v. State, No. 17,756 (Reported on page 438 of this volume). The remarks made in the Bryant case are deemed applicable to the present.

The motion is overruled.

Overruled.


Summaries of

Smitham v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Dec 4, 1935
87 S.W.2d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 1935)
Case details for

Smitham v. State

Case Details

Full title:NICK SMITHAM v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Dec 4, 1935

Citations

87 S.W.2d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 1935)
87 S.W.2d 724

Citing Cases

Pointer v. State

"We are of the opinion that a private citizen who has without authority invaded the premises of another and…

Fincher v. State

It is the contention of the appellant that since a slot machine is a gambling device, his conviction could…