TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Anderson v. State

Gus Anderson v. State

Anderson v. State, 42 S.W.2d 1012 (Tex. Crim. App. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 28, 1931
Docket
No. 14340
Judges
Morrow
Citations
42 S.W.2d 1012118 Tex. Crim. 1941931 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 615

Opinion of the Court — Morrow

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

Upon a plea of guilty the appellant was convicted of the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. Upon a search of his dwelling a large quantity of intoxicating liquor was found. At the time of the search the appellant was not at home. On a previous occasion a bottle full of alcohol was found on his premises. He testified disclaiming any knowledge of the presence of the liquor in his dwelling at the time of the search, and claimed that the alcohol which had previously been discovered was for legitimate use. He admitted, however, that he and one Satterfield were partners in the sale of intoxicating liquor at a filling station. Under the statute (Arts. 501-502, C. C. P.) governing the entry of a plea of guilty, the entry of the plea, after due admonition, is conclusive of guilt unless the evidence introduced upon the trial makes manifest the innocence of the accused. Harris v. State, 76 Texas Crim. Rep., 126 , 172 S. W., 975 . Upon a plea of guilty, the hearing is not to determine the guilt of the accused but to enable the jury to assess the punishment. Garcia v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 9 ; Bennett v. State, 98 Texas Crim. Rep., 661 .

The judgment is affirmed.

A ffi> med.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 17 cases

View all citing references →
1932: 21933: 11934: 11940: 21941: 11945: 11957: 11967: 11981: 11984: 11987: 11989: 11995: 319322026peak 1995 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Fairfield v. State610 S.W.2d 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)
  2. Joseph Bennard Nichols v. Wayne Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division69 F.3d 1255 (5th Cir. 1995)
  3. Williams v. State674 S.W.2d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)
  4. Hoskins v. State425 S.W.2d 825 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967)
  5. Richardson v. State300 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)
  6. Salazar v. State773 S.W.2d 34 (Tex. App. 1989)

Most recent

  1. Nichols v. ScottNo. 92-02720 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 1995)
  2. Joseph Bennard Nichols v. Wayne Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division69 F.3d 1255 (5th Cir. 1995)
  3. Lynch v. State903 S.W.2d 115 (Tex. App. 1995)
  4. Salazar v. State773 S.W.2d 34 (Tex. App. 1989)
  5. Mills v. State736 S.W.2d 940 (Tex. App. 1987)
  6. Williams v. State674 S.W.2d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Harris v. State, 172 S.W. 975 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915) 40
Garcia v. State, 237 S.W. 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 1921) 33
Bennett v. State, 267 S.W. 987 (Tex. Crim. App. 1924) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list