McReynolds v. StateMcReynolds v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Rice
Appellant was convicted of the offense of grand larceny.
We see nothing to discuss. The record is regular in all respects. There were no exceptions reserved on the trial — or rulings by which an exception is presumed.
Appellant, after the trial, procured attorneys — ‘two good ones — who have filed a brief here.
But their principal — in effect, sole — contention is that, appellant ought‘to have a new trial because he had no counsel on his trial below.
*404 He asked for no such counsel, and cannot now complain.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.