Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 Tex. Crim. 480

168 S.W 535

Pullum v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1914-06-24

<p>Swindling—Indeterminate Sentence Law.</p> <p>Where the court below did not comply with the indeterminate sentence law, the sentence will be reformed and the judgment affirmed.</p>

Decided 1914-06-24

PEENDEEGAST, Presiding Judge.

¶1 Appellant was convicted for swindling.

¶2 There is no statement of facts. The indictment follows the statute and the approved forms, and properly charges the offense.

¶3 The sentence does not comply with the indeterminate sentence law. It should have done so. The cleric of this court will enter the proper order of sentence, and this judgment as reformed will be affirmed.

¶4 Affirmed.

/74/texcrim/480 · .json · Public domain