Legal Opinion

Mullens v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided October 30, 1895No. 1203PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of Gonzales. Tried below before Hon. T. H. Spooner. Appellant was convicted of burglary, with intent to commit theft, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years. The opinion states the case.

1Opinion of the Court

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This conviction was for burglary with intent to steal. Attached to his motion for a new trial is appellant’s affidavit, in which he states that, by some misunderstanding, counsel supposed to have been employed to defend him, did not appear in his behalf, and it would seem that this failure was attributable to the fact that he did not pay or secure their fee. Nothing seems to have been said in regard to this matter until after his conviction. How this could possibly constitute a ground for a new trial is not apparent. It is insisted that the evidence is insufficient to support…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People v. SotoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
  2. State v. WoodruffSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
  3. Dimery v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1951
  4. Sikes v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1958
  5. Martin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1945

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API