Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
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)
Judges

R. GOODMAN v. THE STATE.

1. — Robbery — Indictment.

Where, upon trial of robbery, the indictment followed approved precedent, the same was sufficient.

2. — Same — Statement of Facts — Bills of Exception.

In the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exception, the indictment being sufficient, the judgment must be affirmed.

PRENDERGAST, PRESIDING JUDGE.

Appellant was convicted of robbery with firearms and his punishment assessed at ninety-nine years in the penitentiary.

The indictment was good and followed the statute and approved form. Green v. State, 66 Tex.Crim. Rep., 147 S.W. Rep., 593; Bell v. State, 176 S.W. Rep., recently decided.

There is no statement of facts, nor bills of exception that can be considered in the absence of a statement of facts. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

GOODMAN v. THE STATE
(Jun 9, 1915)