Parvin v. State

Decided April 12, 1911

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1911-04-12

1. Criminal Law (§ 1076*) — Appeal—Recognizance— Insufficiency. An appeal from a conviction will be dismissed, where the recognizance is insufficient. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2708-2716; Dec. Dig. § 1076.*] 2. Criminal Law (§ 1144*) — Appeal—Record —Presumptions. Where there is neither a statement of facts nor bills of exceptions in the record, it will be presumed that the trial judge charged all the law applicable to the facts proved. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Gent. Dig. § 3032; Dec. Dig. § 1144.*]

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1927

3 state decisions

Relies on 37 Tex. Crim. 146 - Wright v. State · 34 Tex. Crim. 642 - Jones v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Dismissed · Decided 1911-04-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HARPER, J.

¶1In this case the appellant was indicted in the district court of East-land county, charged with the offense of assault to murder on J. R. Stubblefield. The venue of this offense was changed to Callahan county by the court. Upon a trial, defendant was adjudged guilty of an aggravated assault, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $250 and imprisonment in the county jail for two months.

¶2[1,2] The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss this cause because of insufficient recognizance, and this motion is well taken; but, should we overlook this motion, there is neither a statement of facts *454nor bills of exception in tbe rgeord, and, the record being in this condition, we will presume that the judge charged the law, and all the law, applicable to the facts introduced in evidence. Wright v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R 146, 38 S. W. 1004; Jones v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R 642, 31 S. W. 644, and authorities cited.

¶3Motion is sustained, and cause dismissed.