
    BALDAUF v. STATE.
    (No. 5788.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 14, 1920.)
    1. Intoxicating liquors &wkey;> 17 — Statute prohibiting keeping in locality in which sale prohibited valid.
    Acts 35th Leg. 4th Called Sess. (1918) c. 31, in so far as denouncing offense of unlawfully having and keeping intoxicating liquor in a public place in a locality in which sale is prohibited by local option, held valid.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 159(5)— Evidence >not in question where defendant pleaded guilty and lowest punishment assessed.
    Defendant having pleaded guilty, and lowest punishment having been assessed by jury, sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction is not in question on defendant’s appeal.
    Appeal from District Court, ■ Palo Pinto County; J. B. Keith, Judge.
    C. E. Baldauf was convicted of unlawfully having and keeping intoxicating liquor in a public place in a locality in which sale was prohibited by the local option law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

The appellant is sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for one year upon conviction of the offense of unlawfully “having and keeping” intoxicating liquor in a public place in a locality in which the sale of such liquors was prohibited by the local option prohibition law. The offense took place in June, 1919, before the recent amendment to article 16, § 20, of the Constitution became effective. The appellant entered a plea of guilty. The only question arising from the record is the legality of the statute upon which the prosecution is founded, which is chapter 31 of the Acts of the Thirty-Fifth Legislature, Fourth Called Session. The validity of this statute, so far as it denounced as unlawful the offense charged, has been upheld by the opinions of this court in the cases of Ex parte Fulton, 215 S. W. 331, and Harper v. State, 217 S. W. 703. We deem it unnecessary to review the reasons upon which the validity of the law was sustained.

There are no questions of practice raised. The appellant having pleaded guilty, and the lowest punishment assessed by the jury, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not in question. Terretto v. State, 215 S. W. 330.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.  