
    TRUELOVE v. STATE.
    (No. 7838.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 20, 1924.)
    1. Parent and child ⅞=>18 — That girl left home of father voluntarily not defense to prosecution for enticing.
    In a prosecution for enticing a minor from the custody of her father, that the girl may have left the home of her father voluntarily held not defense.
    2. Criminal law <®=>956(l) — Objection to testimony, heard on motion for new trial, held wifhout merit.
    Objection to testimony, heard on motion for a new trial after a plea of guilty, on the ground that the statements testified to were made by defendant while under arrest, hetd-without merit, where such matters were not on the issue of his guilt, but contradictory of his averments that he did not understand he was entering a plea of guilty.
    Appeal from Ellis County Court; H. R. Stovall, Judge.
    
      J. C. Truelove was convicted of enticing a minor from the custody of her father, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. M. Tidwell, of Ennis, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover O. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant is under conviction for enticing a minor from the custody of her father; his punishment being assessed at a fine of $25.

The judgment recites that appellant, after being duly admonished of the consequences thereof by the court, entered a plea of guilty to the charge, waived a jury, and submitted his plea to the court, and upon such plea of guilty the fine was assessed. Appellant filed a motion for new trial, in which he asserts that he did not intend to enter a plea of guilty, but only desired to ascertain what the fine and costs would be in the event he did enter such plea. Attached to the motion are two affidavits. The state calls attention to the fact that the motion for new trial and also the affidavits are sworn to before appellant’s attorney, and urges that for this reason neither the motion nor the affida•vits should be considered.

If the evidence heard on the motion should be considered, it is not sufficient in our opinion to impeach the judgment upon appellant’s plea of guilty. We do not regard the contention that the young lady may have left the home of her father voluntarily as any defense to the charge that appellant enticed her away. If she had been taken away forcibly, the offense might have been abduction and not that of enticing a minor.

The two bills of exception complaining of the testimony of two witnesses as to what appellant said to them are without merit. They relate to testimony taken upon the motion for rehearing. The objection that the statements were made by appellant while under arrest is not tenable. The witnesses were testifying, not upon the issue of his guilt, but were combating his averments that he did not understand he was entering a plea of guilty.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <g=^For ottier cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBElt in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     