# Studer v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · January 13, 1954 · 159 Tex. Crim. 598

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770456

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Leroy Studer v. State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 13, 1954
- **Citations:** 159 Tex. Crim. 598; 265 S.W.2d 833; 1954 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2374
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Graves
- **Judges:** Graves
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770456

## Opinion text

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
In his motion for rehearing, appellant complains of the method by which the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied in the judgment herein because of the fact that the statute, Art. 535d, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., under which he was convicted, fails to set forth in the punishment any lesser term, but merely sets forth the highest penalty as “any term of years not to exceed twenty-five (25).”
An attack is made upon the opinion herein because it util *602 ized the case of Davis v. State, 125 Tex. Cr. R. 330 , 68 S.W. (2) 217, as authority for the proposition that when no lesser term is set forth in the statute, the punishment being a term of years, we reformed the sentence in that case and directed that the accused be confined in the penitentiary for not less than one hour nor more than one year, the statute itself providing for a punishment of not more than two years, no minimum term being fixed therein.
In the present instance, the court entered its judgment, causing the same to read “for not less than one hour nor more than 15 years” in accordance with the Davis case, supra.
Under these circumstances, we see no reason why we should disturb this judgment, and think the original opinion is correct herein. Therefore, the motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770456. Public record. Not legal advice.