Alexander v. State

• Decision Date: 27 November 1912
• Citation: 152 S.W. 436
• Parties: ALEXANDER v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 436

152 S.W. 436

ALEXANDER v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 27, 1912.

Rehearing Denied January 8, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Comanche County; J. H. Arnold, Judge.

Sam Alexander was convicted of pursuing the business of selling intoxicating liquor in prohibition territory, and he appeals. Affirmed.

J. P. Graham, of Comanche, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARPER, J.

Appellant appeals from a judgment finding him guilty of pursuing the business or occupation of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory.

The judgment in this case, among other things, recites: "This day this cause was called for trial, and the state appeared by her district attorney, and the defendant, Sam Alexander, appeared in person, and both parties announced ready for trial, and the defendant, Sam Alexander, in open court in person pleaded guilty to the charge contained in the indictment, thereupon the said defendant was admonished by the court of the consequences of the said plea, and the said defendant persisted in pleading guilty, and it plainly appearing to the court that the said defendant is sane, and that he is uninfluenced in making said plea by any consideration of fear or by any persuasion or delusive hope of pardon prompting him to confess his guilt, the said plea of guilty is by the court received, and is here entered upon the records of the court as the plea herein of said defendant."

There is in the record no bill of exceptions of any character, but the motion for new trial is sworn to, and is as follows: "His said plea of guilty was made by him under a misapprehension of the charge against him and of the circumstances of his arrest and prosecution in particular as follows: Defendant was arrested by the authorities of McLennan county, and, without informing him of the particular charge against him, defendant was delivered to the sheriff of Comanche county, and by him placed in jail of Comanche county, on the 8th or 9th day of May, 1912, brought into this court, and placed on trial, in which defendant entered his plea of guilty, but he shows to the court that he had not seen the indictment against him, nor heard the same read, and did not know its contents, and had not been served with a copy of the indictment under which he was tried, was under arrest and in jail from the time he was brought to Comanche as aforesaid until his trial. He shows to the court that he was informed that he was charged with selling whisky in Comanche county, but believed it was for making but one sale only, and acting under such belief, he entered his plea as aforesaid. He shows to the court that it is true that he did make one sale of intoxicating liquor to Clay Lester and only one under the following circumstances: Defendant was running a restaurant in the town of Comanche at the time, and had some alcohol on hand for his own use. That said Clay Lester on the occasion referred to begged him to let him (Lester) buy a pint of said liquor, which this defendant in an unguarded moment permitted him to do, which is the only sale of intoxicating liquor this defendant has ever made to any person or persons in Comanche county, Tex. Defendant here denies specifically that he ever sold intoxicating liquors to said Clay Lester and said Dan Norment or to other persons as charged against him in said indictment, except the single sale to Clay Lester as above set out, so that the defendant shows to the court that, when he entered his plea of guilty, he in good faith believed he was so pleading as to a single sale only, and to no other sale. Defendant shows that he has had no attorney until after his conviction, being poor and without means to employ an attorney until friends came to his assistance after his trial. That he did not know the gravity of the charge against him until the indictment was read to the jury, and he learned for the first time that he was charged with more than one sale of intoxicating liquors, and was confused. He shows that he consulted with the sheriff who had him under arrest, and that the sheriff advised him that the easiest or best way would be to plead guilty, and, knowing the fact to be that he, defendant, had made one sale only, defendant was thereby misled. Defendant shows that at the time charged in the indictment the said Dan Norment and defendant were personal enemies, and were not on speaking terms, and that, if the said Dan Norment...