Seamster v. State, No. 27725
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
| Citation | 283 S.W.2d 243,162 Tex.Crim. 172 |
| Decision Date | 02 November 1955 |
| Parties | James Jack SEAMSTER and Jay Lee Seamster, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 27725 |
Page 243
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
[162 Tex.Crim. 173]
Page 244
Reid & Reid, by T. M. Reid, Abilene, for appellants.Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
BELCHER, Commissioner.
Appellants were convicted for the offense of misdemeanor theft and the punishment for each was assessed at two years in jail and a fine of $500.
Appellant, Jay Lee Seamster, entered a plea of guilty, and appellant, James Jack Seamster, entered plea of not guilty.
No aughenticated statement of facts accompanies the record. The testimony presented on the trial was not reported.
Appellants contend that the information and complaint are fatally defective because they are duplicitous in that they allege that the appellants 'did then and there at the same time and place and by the same act ant intent fraudulently take' four different sums of money of the aggregate value of $34 from the possession of, belonging to and without the consent of four different owners. The acts charged consist of one transaction and are but one offense, and therefore, duplicity is not shown in the state's pleadings. Addison v. State, 3 Tex.App. 40; Hudson v. State, 9 Tex. App. 151, 35 Am.Rep. 732; Long v. State, 43 Tex. 467; Clark v. State, 28 Tex.App. 189, 12 S.W. 729, 19 Am.St.Rep. 817; Thompson v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 511, 34 S.W. 629; Ratcliff v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 616, 38 S.W.2d 326; Branch's Ann.P.C., p. 259, sec. 506; 23 Tex.Jur. 652, sec. 46; Texas Dig., Indictment and Information k125(45); 28 A.L.R.2d 1179, 1186.
Appellants further seek a reversal because they were, after the exercise of due diligence and without any fault on their part, denied a statement of facts.
[162 Tex.Crim. 174] The affidavit of appellants' counsel sets forth facts relative to the approval of appellants' proposed statement of facts submitted to state's counsel within a short time after notice of appeal, which show that he and state's counsel, after numerous discussions, were unable to agree on a statement of facts. It further whows that after the expiration of 75 days after giving notice of appeal appellants' counsel submitted to the trial judge a statement of facts which bore his verified statement that the parties in said cause had failed and were unable to agree upon a statement of facts therein, and that the statement of facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, No. 40575
...In this connection, although not cited, see also Hartgraves v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 888; Seamster v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 172, 283 S.W.2d 243. The case at bar is clearly distinguishable from these In Thomas v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 533, 164 S.W.2d 852, the statement of facts was fo......
-
Ex parte Sadler, No. 27913
...here. So, then, if the ten-year delay was a suspension of sentence, or probation, it is of no force and effect for the want of authority[162 Tex.Crim. 172] in the trial court to enter the same. The validity of the order delaying the sentence in the Red River County case must depend, then, u......
-
Ferguson v. State, No. 35987
...as presented or to prepare, certify, and file a statement of facts. Art. 759a, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Seamster v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 172, 283 S.W.2d 243. Page It appears from the record that the appellant has been deprived of a statement of facts without fault on his part, and under such ci......
-
Williams v. State, No. 40575
...In this connection, although not cited, see also Hartgraves v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 888; Seamster v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 172, 283 S.W.2d 243. The case at bar is clearly distinguishable from these In Thomas v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 533, 164 S.W.2d 852, the statement of facts was fo......
-
Ex parte Sadler, No. 27913
...here. So, then, if the ten-year delay was a suspension of sentence, or probation, it is of no force and effect for the want of authority[162 Tex.Crim. 172] in the trial court to enter the same. The validity of the order delaying the sentence in the Red River County case must depend, then, u......
-
Ferguson v. State, No. 35987
...as presented or to prepare, certify, and file a statement of facts. Art. 759a, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Seamster v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 172, 283 S.W.2d 243. Page It appears from the record that the appellant has been deprived of a statement of facts without fault on his part, and under such ci......