interpreting Art. 419 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure, the predecessor of present Art. 21.26, V.A.C.C. P.
How later courts described this case
- interpreting Art. 419 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure, the predecessor of present Art. 21.26, V.A.C.C. P.
- opinion on appellant’s second motion for rehearing
- opinion on State’s motion for rehearing
- on State’s Motion for Rehearing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*198 SECOND OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Pursuant to the mandate contained in our opinion dated November 30, 1966, the Honorable David S. McAngus, as Judge of the County Court at Law No. 2, held a hearing on five days in December, and has forwarded to this Court in due time, three volumes consisting of 599 pages of testimony taken at such hearing together with his finding of fact based upon such hearing. We have examined the record with care and conclude that it supports the Judge’s finding and that this appellant has not been denied due process and that his conviction was not obtained by the use of false evidence known to be false by the police officer named in the affidavit mentioned in our prior opinion.
This claim now having been settled, the State’s motion for rehearing is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
It is so ordered.