Lee v. State

202 S.W. 732, 83 Tex. Crim. 250, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 145
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 10, 1918
DocketNo. 4969.
StatusPublished

This text of 202 S.W. 732 (Lee 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
Lee v. State, 202 S.W. 732, 83 Tex. Crim. 250, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 145 (Tex. 1918).

Opinion

MORROW, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, receiving stolen property under the value of $50.

His prosecution was in the County Court of Guadalupe County, which adjourned on the 3rd day of February, 1918. Ho order granting permission to file the statement of facts and bills of exception after adjournment is found in the record. These appear to have been filed on the 26th day of February, 1918. The State, through the Assistant Attorney General, has filed a motion to strike them out because not filed during the term. This court has held uniformly that a statement of facts and bills of exceptions in a misdemeanor case in the County Court having no official stenographer must be filed in term time or within twenty days thereafter, and if filed after adjournment the record must show the order of the court duly entered extending the time within which the filing may be made. Durham v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 71, 155 S. W. Rep., 222; Chaney v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 67; Whitaker v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 36; Morris v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 375; Farrell v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 200; Hall v. State, 70 Texas Crim. Rep., 240; Mueller v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 544; Mosher v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 42; Hamilton v. State, 65 Texas Crim. Rep., 508, 145 S. W. Rep., 348. See Vernon’s C. C. P., p. 823.

Following these authorities the motion of the State must be sustained.

The information does not appear to he subject to the criticisms of appellant made in his motion to quash.

Absence of hills of exceptions and statement of facts leaves nothing further to review. It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed.

Affirmed.

PRENDERGAST, Judge, absent.

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

Related

Chaney v. State
136 S.W. 483 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Morris v. State
140 S.W. 775 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Durham and Harris v. State
155 S.W. 222 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Whitaker v. State
136 S.W. 1072 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Farrell v. State
141 S.W. 535 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Mosher v. State
136 S.W. 467 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)
Hall v. State
156 S.W. 644 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Hamilton v. State
145 S.W. 348 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Mueller v. State
135 S.W. 571 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 S.W. 732, 83 Tex. Crim. 250, 1918 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-texcrimapp-1918.