Chambers v. State

194 S.W.2d 774, 149 Tex. Crim. 400, 1946 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 794
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 8, 1946
DocketNo. 23346.
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 194 S.W.2d 774 (Chambers v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chambers v. State, 194 S.W.2d 774, 149 Tex. Crim. 400, 1946 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 794 (Tex. 1946).

Opinion

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of misdemeanor theft, and by a jury given a sentence of six months in jail.

There is neither a statement of facts nor any bills of exceptions found in the record.

Appellant urges in a brief filed herein that fundamental error is shown by the record in that the complaint which initiates this prosecution is sworn to before an officer who does not exist, and therefore is in fact no complaint such as is contemplated by law.

The jurat attached to such complaint shows that an affidavit was made by F. L. Estepp before Perry L. Jones, Assistant County Attorney, Travis County, Texas, on August 13, 1945.

There appears in the transcript furnished us herein a certified copy of the bond of Perry L. Jones, as County Attorney of Travis County, Texas, and his oath of office, both executed on January 1, 1945, showing that Perry L. Jones took the oath of office as County Attorney of Travis County, Texas, on January 1, 1945, and again a statement of the County Clerk of Travis County that the records of the County Clerk do not show the appointment of any assistants by said Perry L. Jones.

These two statements from the County Clerk being shown to have been made at the request of the defendant (appellant herein), but no file mark appearing thereon; they have no place in the transcript; they are ex parte matters, not offered in proof at the trial, nor on the motion for a new trial, and should not have been included in the transcript. They have *402 neither been filed nor introduced upon the trial nor disposition of this case, and we cannot consider such as a part of this record.

These matters do not appear to' have been called to the attention of the trial court, nor the opposing counsel, but appear to have been brought here in this court without notice or reason. They should not have been incorporated in the transcript.

The proceedings given consideration herein appear to be regular, and with nothing further properly presented for review, the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thomas Linz Johnson v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022
Mahammad Haroon Rashid v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021
Penn, Christopher Lamont
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Johnson, Manley Dewayne
423 S.W.3d 385 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)
Roderick D. Thomas v. State
445 S.W.3d 288 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)
Jose Juan Cardenas v. State
403 S.W.3d 377 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)
Manley Dewayne Johnson v. State
389 S.W.3d 513 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012)
Paul Joseph Shoemaker v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
Gary Lynn Cook v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003
Smith v. State
96 S.W.3d 377 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Smith, Sean Allen v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002
Webber v. State
21 S.W.3d 726 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Dawn E. Webber v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000
Lamb v. State
931 S.W.2d 611 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Bowler v. State
822 S.W.2d 334 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 S.W.2d 774, 149 Tex. Crim. 400, 1946 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-state-texcrimapp-1946.