Legal Opinion

Mikulec v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided April 30, 1924No. 8423Published

1Opinion

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

We believe our former-disposition of the ease correct, but in the-opinion one matter is not adverted to upon which appellant insists, viz. that section 2d,, c. 61, Acts 1st C. S. 37th Leg. (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588¼a4) providing that no person over 25 years of age-should have the benefit of the Suspended. Sentence Law who might be convicted of *753violating tlie provisions of the liquor law, is obnoxious to section 36, art. 3, of the Constitution, prohibiting the amendment of k law by reference to its title. He admits that Davis v. State, 93…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922
  2. Guse v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1923
  3. Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1922
  4. Rambo v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1923
  5. Ex Parte WilsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1919

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API