Opinion
No. 12524.
Delivered April 3, 1929. Rehearing denied May 8, 1929.
1. — Sale of Intoxicating Liquor — No Statement of Facts, No Bill of Exceptions.
When a record comes to this court which contains no statement of facts and no bill of exceptions and no complaint of the trial below is shown, the judgment must be affirmed.
ON REHEARING.2. — Same — Indictment — Objection Presented too Late.
For the first time, appellant in his motion for a rehearing, raises the question that the indictment is duplicitous. We see no vice in the indictment in this respect. Even if it were vulnerable to such an attack, it comes too late when made for the first time after conviction. See Melley v. State, 93 Tex. Crim. 522 and other cases cited in opinion 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 sale of intoxicating liquor, 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 selling intoxicating liquor; 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 his motion for rehearing upon the contention that the indictment is duplicitous now for the first time raising that question. We see no vice in the indictment in the respect mentioned. Even if it were vulnerable to such an attack it comes too late when made for the first time after conviction. Melley v. State, 93 Tex.Crim. R., 248 S.W. 367; Ramsey v. State, 108 Tex.Crim. R., 299 S.W. 411; Garner v. State, 100 Tex.Crim. R., 272 S.W. 167.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.