
    EDWARDS v. STATE.
    No. 26434.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 13, 1953.
    Rehearing Denied June 24, 1953.
    See, also, Tex.Cr.App., 261 S.W.2d 166.
    Harvey C. Ford, Dallas! for appellant.
    Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

To the charge of theft from the person, appellant waived trial by jury, pleaded guilty, and was assessed a penalty of 'two years in the penitentiary by the court.

The statutory requisites of waiver of jury trial and plea of guilty were complied with. Art. 10a, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

By motion for new trial, appellant sought to show that he was overreached in entering his plea of guilty and waiving trial by jury. The trial court heard evidence relative to such allegation, and overruled the motion.

The facts so adduced are before us in a statement of facts upon motion for new trial.

It would serve no useful purpose to here state those facts. It is sufficient ti> say that the trial court’s action was warranted.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. '

Opinion approved by the Court,

On Motion for Rehearing

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant has filed a motion for, rehearing herein which evidences his dissatisfaction with the original opinion here! tofore handed down because, as alleged by him, the testimony adduced on his trial does not show that a theft from the person of the officer was committed. As we gath-1 er'from his motion, he expects us to review the statement of facts herein as evidencing a lack of evidence shown therefrom. There is no statment of facts found in the record, either in this cause or in the companion case, Tex.Cr.App., 261 S.W.2d 166, and wé are not apprised of the facts that were adduced upon the trial hereof. In this cause appellant received a penalty of two years in the state penitentiary, he being charged herein with theft from the person. In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to tell what the facts are. The proceedings otherwise appear to be regular. ,

The original opinion herein seems to have properly disposed of the matter, and the motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.  