Francis v. State

106 S.W.2d 279, 132 Tex. Crim. 591, 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 358
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 17, 1937
DocketNo. 18793.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 106 S.W.2d 279 (Francis 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
Francis v. State, 106 S.W.2d 279, 132 Tex. Crim. 591, 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 358 (Tex. 1937).

Opinions

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— Robbery by assault is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for ten years.

*592 The record is before us without statement of facts or bills • of exception.

The judgment.of conviction was rendered May 8, 1936. The motion for new trial was overruled on July 29, 1936, and notice of appeal given on that date. On October 26, 1936, appellant presented to the trial judge her affidavit of inability to pay for the statement of facts, which was eight-nine days after the date on which notice of appeal was given. Thus only one day remained for the preparation of the statement of facts in order that it might be filed within the ninety days allowed by law.

From the affidavit of the court reporter it appears that at the time of the filing of appellant’s affidavit of inability to pay for the statement of facts he was engaged in reporting a contested criminal case which rendered it practically impossible for him to prepare the appellant’s statement of facts within the prescribed time. No adequate explanation is given for the failure of the appellant to file her affidavit for a copy of the statement. of facts at such time as would enable the court reporter to prepare the same within the ninety days after the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial and the giving of the notice of appeal. Under the circumstances reflected by the record, we think there was a lack of proper diligence upon the part of the appellant to procure the statement of. facts within.the time allowed by law. See Murphy v. State, 91 S. W. (2d) 738; Kelley v. State, 91 S. W. (2d) 343.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

David Gerald Arnold v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007
Arnold v. State
234 S.W.3d 664 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Ex Parte Thorbus
455 S.W.2d 756 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1970)
Freeman v. State
117 S.W.2d 93 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Woods v. State
114 S.W.2d 551 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 S.W.2d 279, 132 Tex. Crim. 591, 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-state-texcrimapp-1937.