¶1The offense is embezzlement; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years.
¶2The indictment is regular and regularly presented.
¶3. The record.is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception.
¶4A plea of guilty was entered.
¶5In pronouncing the sentence the court failed to take note of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (article 775, C. C. P. 1925, as amended by Acts 1931, c. 207, § 1 [Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 775]), under the terms of which the appellant will be condemned to suffer confinement in the penitentiary for a period of not less than two nor more than three years. • •
¶6As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
¶7On Motion for Eehearing.
¶8• The offense charged is controlled by the same statutes and legal principles as Knowles v. State (Tex. Cr. App. No. 16,694) 70 S.W.(2d) 720, to which case reference is here made.
¶9The motion for rehearing is overruled.