Full opinion text
GRAVES, Judge. Appellant was convicted by a jury fora violation of the local option liquor laws, of such county, and upon a pleading alleging a former conviction for a similar-offense he was fined $200. There are three cases against the same defendant appealed to this court, and hearing our numbers 21133, 21134 and 21135. This No. 21133 being an appeal in the county court No, 1784, No. 21134 - S.W.2d-, being an appeal in the county court No. 1786, and No. 21135, 141 S.W.2d 600, being an appeal in the county court No. 1788. It appears that appellant had been convicted in county court cause No. 1744 on November 4, 1938 as shown in Book 3, page 538, of the minutes of the San Saba County Court, and that such prior conviction was the one relied upon for an enhancement of punishment in this case. It also appears that such county court cause No. 1744 had been previously introduced and relied upon in county court cause No. 1786 for the purpose of an enhancement of punishment, such county court cause No. 1786 appearing before us at the present time as our cause No. 21134. This prior conviction can not be used but once, for the purpose of an enhancement of the punishment. See Eddie Miller v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 140 S.W.2d 859, decided May 29, 1940, and not yet published in state reports. It is evident, however, that the jury herein did use such county court cause No. 1744 for the enhancement of punishment in this cause in that they gave appellant a fine of $200, or double the lowest penalty. On account of the error in allowing such cause No. 1744 to be used the second time for the enhancement of the penalty, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Not released by court at date of publication.