*1 122 having any
further testified that individual of .15
a alcohol in excess concentration of intoxicated, this
percent and that be would by percent more
had been lowered to .10 study
recent and tests. five
Appellant consumed testified that he 8:30 between
twelve ounce bottles beer of arrest, but de- his prior
and to 11:30 P.M. His com-
nied intoxicated. that he was
panion corroborated during hours those
him. ap- against jury
The issue resolved the to sus-
pellant is and the evidence sufficient findings.
tain their appel argument brief oral
By and fundamental that was
lant contends there proof regarding the regard in to the
error objec of In the absence
intoximeter test. evidence, Big Springs, George Thomas, for of such T. tion to the admission appellant. regard. us this nothing is before in there judgment The is affirmed. Austin,, Atty., Douglas, Leon B. State’s
for the State.
WOODLEY, Judge. Presiding the a. alleged burglary The indictment of operated coin machine with intent to steal 1402a„ personal property (Art. therein. Vernon’s second count al- Ann.P.C.) The operated a Washington HENAGE, Appellant, leged pay the theft of tele- coin George phone of the value over of $50. v. Texas, Appellee. of STATE appointed Appellant and his court coun- by (Art. time sel the allowed statute waived No. 33658. 494, prepare to Ann.C.C.P.) Vernon’s for Appeals of Texas. of Criminal Court trial, attorney and the of with consent the 1, 1961. Nov. state, approval representing the and the of judge, jury
the trial waived a trial and pleaded guilty to count of one the indict- ment. heard,
After the evidence was the suf- ficiency questioned of which is not and appellant’s confession, which included coun- punishment the sel state recommended a for appellant’s years and counsel stated of 5 objection. no there was The trial judge appellant guilty found and assessed then his punishment years 5 the penitentiary. at in *2 123 decision are aware of or Appellant filing motion We no statute time for waived facts show requiring same that the statement of the for and was sentenced new trial as admonition the defendant (cid:127)day. given the to consequences plea guilty. of to the his of and appeal given Notice was thereafter of the court There is no certification that all ¡recognizance appeal into. on entered appears admonishing said in the defendant in the facts herein. statement of upon is The reversal ground sole which agree n sought these unable to Under facts we are was appellant is the contention that appellant’s the record with contention that not the conse- by admonished court of the as the shows he admonished that was not by quence required plea guilty of his as of he judgment recites was. SOI, Art. C.C.P. State, Tex.Cr.App., Braggs In 334 S.W. v. The recites judgment that the “defendant 793, 794, by Mor appellant, Judge 2d cited by was conse- admonished the court of the rison, opinion convic reversing in his the quences plea, of and defendant said said tion, plea, accepting appellant’s “In stated: persisted guilty.” in pleading in the same practically the court did so opinion in words as are set forth in our It appellant’s is contention the record that State, 53, 288 Alexander v. Tex.Cr.R. 163 clearly discloses that the was not defendant 779, failed to and which we held S.W.2d “consequences” the of “admonished” of conse properly the accused of the admonish plea. said quences plea required Article by of his as 501, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.” The statement of facts reveals that the judge trial ascertained from the defendant in the re- Judge Davidson concurred that he that the one for realized offense was versal, upon grounds. -other but penitentiary, which he could be sent to the ap- writer, dissenting, The “As to said: (cid:127)and informed the defendant that the maxi- pellant of by the court being admonished punishment years mum was “at least several consequences plea of the guilty, her of the in the and penitentiary” the defendant said and judgment recites that this was done he understood this. exception showing the con- is bill of there no State, trary, there was in Alexander v. as Appellant upon any relies the absence of 53, 288 779.” 163Tex.Cr.R. S.W.2d showing in the statement of facts that the punishment court informed him that the for State, Braggs that the v. It follows case of charged the offense in the first the count of may holding con- supra, not be construed as indictment was a fine not of less that $100 so, opinion. it to that ex- trary this is to If $1000, nor more than or in the confinement tent overruled. County for less not than 10 nor days Jail is judgment The affirmed. years, imprison- more than or both 2 fine and ment, confinement in or the Peniten- State period years; of tiary a not more 5 for than MORRISON, Judge (concurring). of that nor the statement facts does show to the affirmance of the conviction agree I punish- admonished that
(cid:127)appellant the was have that I concluded the admoni- because charged in the second ment the offense for not, however, given was sufficient. I do tion 10 indictment was from 2 to count of the State, Braggs v. the of agree overruling to years penitentiary. in the necessary not is to and do think it do supra, exception. of There are no bills so.