McReynolds v. State

RICE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of grand larceny.

We see nothing to discuss. The record is regular in all respects. There were no exceptions reserved on the trial — or rulings by which an exception is presumed.

Appellant, after the trial, procured attorneys — 'two good ones — who have filed a brief here.

But their principal — in effect, sole — contention is that, appellant ought'to have a new trial because he had no counsel on his trial below.

He asked for no such counsel, and cannot now complain.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.