From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shotwell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Oct 19, 1938
120 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1938)

Opinion

No. 19829.

Delivered June 8, 1938. Rehearing denied October 19, 1938.

1. — Appeal — Affirmance.

Where the indictment appeared regular and regularly presented, record was before appellate court without statement of facts or bills of exception, and no error was perceived or pointed out justifying a reversal, conviction was affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

2. — Judgment Reformed — Verdict.

A record held not to present "fundamental error" in that the verdict the trial court received was signed by "M. R. Smith" as foreman, while the verdict set forth in the judgment of the court bore signature of "M. R. Nash," where judgment recited that "M. R. Smith and eleven others were duly selected, impaneled and sworn," and it was manifest that the error was clerical and occurred in carrying the verdict into the judgment of the court, and hence judgment would be reformed to reflect the verdict signed by M. R. Smith, as foreman of the jury.

Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas County. Hon. Grover Adams, Judge.

Appeal from conviction for theft of an automobile; penalty, confinement in penitentiary for two years.

Affirmed.

The opinion states the case.

W. L. Ward, of Dallas, for appellant.

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


Theft of an automobile is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment appears regular and regularly presented. The record is before this Court without statement of facts or bills of exception. No error has been perceived or pointed out justifying a reversal of the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING.


In his motion for rehearing appellant insists that the record presents fundamental error in that the verdict the court received was signed by M. R. Smith, as foreman, while the verdict set forth in the judgment of the court bears the signature of M. R. Nash. It is recited in the judgment that "M. R. Smith and eleven others were duly selected, impanelled and sworn." It is manifest that the error was clerical and occurred in carrying the verdict into the judgment of the court. We therefore reform the judgment in order that it may reflect the verdict signed by M. R. Smith, as foreman of the jury.

Appellant's 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

Shotwell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Oct 19, 1938
120 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1938)
Case details for

Shotwell v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT LEE SHOTWELL v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Oct 19, 1938

Citations

120 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1938)
120 S.W.2d 97

Citing Cases

Ins. Co. of N. Amer. v. Lemon

Generally, a mistake in writing or copying. 1 L. Raym. 183; Los Angeles Shipbuilding Dry Dock Corporation v.…