Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

Roy Randolph ERWIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment was assessed by a jury at a fine of $100.00.

An examination of the appellant's brief shows that it contains a statement of the nature of the case and 'discussion.' Extraneous offenses and what the defense offered to stipulate during the trial are discussed, along with 22 different references to specific pages in the record. This does not properly assign error as required by Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P. In order to ascertain appellant's complaint in this matter, it would be necessary for the court to search the entire record; a procedure which was not condoned in McElroy v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 223. Appellant complains of general rullings of the trial court and this fails to meet the requirements of Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P. Huffman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 858; Dailey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 346; Keel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 687.

There being no proper assignment of error and nothing contained in the record which we should consider as unassigned error, under Section 13 of said Art. 40.09, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ERWIN v. STATE
(Feb 10, 1971)