Pena v. State
| Decision Date | 18 January 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 11265.) |
| Citation | 1 S.W.2d 1095 |
| Parties | PENA v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bee County; T. M. Cox, Judge.
Augustine Pena, alias Archie Parr, was convicted of assault to murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
F. G. Chambliss, of Beeville, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction for assault to murder; punishment, three years in the penitentiary.
We find in the record only one bill of exceptions, which was reserved to the refusal of a continuance. The bill is defective. The application for continuance does not appear therein. The bill is qualified by a statement of the trial court that the witness named in the application was present at the trial. The testimony in this case is conflicting, the conflict arising over the question as to whether the shooting was done in self-defense or otherwise. The jury have settled this issue against appellant, and we do not feel inclined to disturb their verdict.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacKenna v. Ellis
...shown therein." MacKenna v. State, 1957, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 623, 301 S.W.2d 657, 658. The result was inevitable under Texas law. Pena v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 1 S.W.2d 1095; Williams v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 574, 27 S.W.2d 217 and Chavez v. State, 147 Tex. Cr.R. 423, 181 S.W.2d MacKenna then filed ......
-
MacKenna v. Ellis
...defense and asked for a continuance\', the bill is insufficient as the application for continuance is not shown therein. Pena v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 1 S.W.2d 1095; Williams v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 574, 27 S.W.2d 217 and Chavez v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 181 S.W.2d The appellee insists in ......
- Wright v. State
-
Mackenna v. State
...his defense and asked for a continuance', the bill is insufficient as the application for continuance is not shown therein. Pena v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 1 S.W.2d 1095; Williams v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 574, 27 S.W.2d 217 and Chavez v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 181 S.W.2d 85. Appellant further......