green
Positive treatment
3.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1934 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1934
1980
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sandoval III, Juan v. State
App. 1953) and Morman v. State , 75 S.W.2d 886, 887 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ketchum v. State
Villescas v. State, 189 S.W.3d 290 , 293 n. 14 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (quoting Morman v. State, 127 Tex.Crim. 264 , 75 S.W.2d 886, 887 (1934)); see Coleman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Tex. Crim.App.1979) (holding that the purpose of an enhancement allegation is to provide the accused with notice of the prior conviction relied upon by the State).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ketchum v. State
Villescas v. State, 189 S.W.3d 290 , 293 n. 14 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (quoting Morman v. State, 127 Tex.Crim. 264 , 75 S.W.2d 886, 887 (1934)); see Coleman v. State, 577 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Tex. Crim.App.1979) (holding that the purpose of an enhancement allegation is to provide the accused with notice of the prior conviction relied upon by the State).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. State
Bray v. State, 531 S.W.2d 633, 634-5 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Corley v. State, 158 Tex.Cr. 207 , 254 S.W.2d 394, 394 (1953); Morman v. State, 127 Tex.Cr. 264 , 75 S.W.2d 886, 887 (1934).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jeters v. State
See, also, Norman v. State, 75 S. W. (2d) 886 , and cases therein cited, In view of the facts above cited and the authorities collated, and in obedience to the law as it has long been declared both by statute and judicial interpretations, the indictment upon which the appellant was tried is not that which was signed and returned by the grand jury.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ROY
v.
STATE
v.
STATE
No. 17064.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov 7, 1934.
75 S.W.2d 886
Sisco & Sisco, of McKinney, for appellant., Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Christian.
Published
CHRISTIAN, Judge.
The offense is selling a spirituous liquor capable of producing intoxication; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.
The judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.