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

E.D. PULLUM v. THE STATE.

Swindling — Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Where the court below did not comply with the indeterminate sentence law, the sentence will be reformed and the judgment affirmed.

PRENDERGAST, PRESIDING JUDGE.

Appellant was convicted for swindling.

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

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

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PULLUM v. THE STATE
(Jun 24, 1914)