Keller v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Keller v. State

253 S.W. 779, 95 Tex. Crim. 256

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 6, 1923

DocketNo. 7425.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 253 S.W. 779 (Keller 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

Keller v. State, 253 S.W. 779, 95 Tex. Crim. 256 (Tex. 1923).

Pincite

Opinions

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Tarrant County of bigamy, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has a number of bills of exception in the record, each of which presents the same unfortunate condition. The term of the court below ended on the 1st of July, 1922. On the 30th of June the court overruled appellant’s motion for a new trial and as a part of his order gave to appellant sixty days from said date in which to prepare and file bills of exception and statement of facts in said cause. On August 24th thereafter, appellant sought an extension of said time and the court made his order specifically granting thirty days from and after August 29, 1922, within which to file and prepare such bills of exception and statement of facts. There remained two days of August. The thirty days extension thus granted appellant expired on September 28, 1922. Each of appellant’s bills of exception was filed on September 29, 1922. They were one day too late. We cannot consider them. Jarrott v. State, 84 Texas Crim. Rep. 544, 209 S. W. Rep. 663; Benson v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep. *258 126, 210 S. W. Rep. 538. Authorities are too numerous to mention forbidding us • to consider bills of exception which are filed after the time fixed by statute, or by the order of the court below extending such time. .

The statement of facts amply shows that appellant, while a married man, attempted a second time to reenter the marriage relation in Tarrant County about the date alleged in the indictment.. The minister who performed the ceremony and the persons who were present at the marriage testified, and the marriage license was introduced in evidence. The only attempted defense was based on insanity produced by the continued use of 'intoxicating liquor. The facts amply supported the verdict and judgment of guilty.

Finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.

Affirmed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Tarrant County of bigamy, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has a number of bills of exception in the record, each of which presents the same unfortunate condition. The term of the court below ended on the 1st of July, 1922. On the 30th of June the court overruled appellant’s motion for a new trial and as a part of his order gave to appellant sixty days from said date in which to prepare and file bills of exception and statement of facts in said cause. On August 24th thereafter, appellant sought an extension of said time and the court made his order specifically granting thirty days from and after August 29, 1922, within which to file and prepare such bills of exception and statement of facts. There remained two days of August. The thirty days extension thus granted appellant expired on September 28, 1922. Each of appellant’s bills of exception was filed on September 29, 1922. They were one day too late. We cannot consider them. Jarrott v. State, 84 Texas Crim. Rep. 544, 209 S. W. Rep. 663; Benson v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep. *258 126, 210 S. W. Rep. 538. Authorities are too numerous to mention forbidding us • to consider bills of exception which are filed after the time fixed by statute, or by the order of the court below extending such time. .

The statement of facts amply shows that appellant, while a married man, attempted a second time to reenter the marriage relation in Tarrant County about the date alleged in the indictment.. The minister who performed the ceremony and the persons who were present at the marriage testified, and the marriage license was introduced in evidence. The only attempted defense was based on insanity produced by the continued use of 'intoxicating liquor. The facts amply supported the verdict and judgment of guilty.

Finding no error in the record, an affirmance is ordered.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 S.W. 779, 95 Tex. Crim. 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keller-v-state-texcrimapp-1923.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack