
    Pedro Perales v. The State.
    No. 3376.
    Decided January 13, 1915.
    1.—Murder—Precedent—Practice on Appeal.
    Where, upon appeal from a conviction of murder, the questions involved were the same as in companion cases and decided adversely to appellant, there was no error.
    8.—Same—Indeterminate Sentence—Reforming Sentence.
    Where the lower court failed to conform to the Indeterminate Sentence Act, the judgment and sentence of the lower court is hereby reformed in accordance with said Act.
    Appeal from the District Court of Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. W. S. Anderson.
    Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twenty-five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the ease.
    Ho brief on file for appellant.
    
      G. B. Lane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant is one of the parties indicted for the murder of the deputy sheriff, Ortiz, of Dimmit County. It is a companion case of that of Vasquez, Serratto, Gonzales, and others heretofore decided by this court. The jury convicted him and assessed his punishment at twenty-five years in the penitentiary.

The record in this case and the questions in it are precisely the same as those in the Yasquez case, affirmed by this court on December 23, 1914. The opinion of the court in that case decides every question that is raised and necessary to be decided in this. The two eases are precisely the same, only different defendants. We refer to the opinion in that case and adopt it as the opinion in this case.

The sentence of the court below, instead of conforming to our indeterminate sentence Act, assesses the punishment at a fixed time of twenty-five years. The sentence of the lower court is therefore reformed and the clerk of this court will enter the judgment accordingly.

Reformed and affirmed.

Affirmed.  