*1 348 county am attorney then stated: “I
The argument safety how
making and the about get up.”
people all rowZed “ * * jury:
The court then instructed the in anything about sex
you don’t consider
this case at all.” request appellant’s made no
The counsel instruc- further
for such instruction or for
tiоn, the and did not make known to court еxception dis-
by or that he was motion ruling. with
satisfied the court’s 77, State, 114 Tex.Cr.R.
Bridewell v. 134 259, prose- appellant, was a by cited
S.W.2d exception cer- rape. for The bill of
cution arguments complained of were that the
tified argument prejudicial. of the
highly Part prove that he “Why did he not let me
was if he wanted girls to assault other little
tried
to be fair?” agree Bridewell v. State do not that
We authority reversing conviction. for this
is is
Appellant’s rehearing over- motion for
ruled. parte
Ex Paul SEFFENS. Nо. 36501. ap- attorney appeаl, for of on No record Appеals of Texas. Court Criminal of Paso, рellant; George Rodriquez, El on 5, rehеaring.
Feb. 1964. Rehearing 11, Denied March 1964. Austin, Atty., Douglas, B. Leon State’s
for the State.
BELCHER, Judge. appeal remand- an an order
This is from to custody аppellant to for extradition ing thе of Nebraska. State by the apрroved of No facts statement rеcord. in the appears counsel trial or court *2 349 judgment hearing The recites that on the Catharyn COUNTRYMAN, Appellant, M. corpus of the writ of intro- habеas the state duced in the warrant evidence of the Gov- v. ernor of the Texas for the arrest State of Tеxas, Appellee. The STATE of appellant; found
of the and the trial court No. 36478. regular therein that the warrаnt was on Appeals its face. Court of Criminal Texas. of 12, 1964. Feb. The introductiоn in evidence of Rehearing I8, Deniеd March 1964. prima the Governor’s warrаnt made out a appellant’s еxtradi authorizing facie case parte Tangney, Ex Tex.Cr.R.
tion. 165
386, 804. 307 S.W.2d exception,
In the one formal bill of appellant contends thаt the Nebraska
the trying to collect a civil
authorities were support facts in of his conten
debt. No bill, hence it
tion are contained in the
cannot be reviewed. of facts
In the absence of a statement by heard the court
showing the evidence corpus hearing nothing is the habeas
at
presented for review. judgment
The affirmed. is approved
Opinion by the Court.
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge. opin- original the rendition of our Since Oehler, Dallas, appellant. Chester A. for 5, 1964, Februаry appellant ion herein on Austin, Atty., Dоuglas, Leon B. State’s approvеd has tendered a statement of fаcts for the State. February 10, by Judge 1964. the Trial on holdings this Under the of Court WOODLEY, Presiding Judge. 36,222, yet State, report No. not
in Hill v. driving; punish- drunk the The offense is 140, ed; State, Selvidge Tex.Cr.R. v. 171 ment, days jail in a fine of 10 and $100. State, 523; Cunningham and v. 345 S.W.2d 37, 3, our con 172 353 Tex.Cr.R. S.W.2d appellant the Thе shows that evidence precluded. is sideration of the same upon а Dallas street an automobile drove automobile. rear into the of another Appellant’s rehearing motion for is over- ruled. struck car that was driver of the The the car back to that she walked
testified appellant, driving and the appellant the was WOODLEY, J.,P. dissents.