Mullins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Mullins v. State

237 S.W. 924, 91 Tex. Crim. 164, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 109

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 22, 1922

DocketNo. 6710.

StatusPublished

This text of 237 S.W. 924 (Mullins 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

Mullins v. State, 237 S.W. 924, 91 Tex. Crim. 164, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 109 (Tex. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

—Conviction is for rape; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of five years.

The court in which the cause was tried began on the 2nd day of May and ended on the 3rd day of September. The final judgment was rendered June 27th. Ninety days thereafter were allowed in which to file the statement of facts and bills of exceptions. The! statement of facts was not filed until November 14th; the bills of *165 exceptions were filed November 12th. The law required that both should have been filed by the 25th day of September, 1921. There is no explanation of the delay, and we are not privileged to consider either the bills of exceptions or the statement of facts.

There is no fault in the indictment, nor is there any irregularity discerned in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

—Conviction is for rape; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of five years.

The court in which the cause was tried began on the 2nd day of May and ended on the 3rd day of September. The final judgment was rendered June 27th. Ninety days thereafter were allowed in which to file the statement of facts and bills of exceptions. The! statement of facts was not filed until November 14th; the bills of *165 exceptions were filed November 12th. The law required that both should have been filed by the 25th day of September, 1921. There is no explanation of the delay, and we are not privileged to consider either the bills of exceptions or the statement of facts.

There is no fault in the indictment, nor is there any irregularity discerned in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 S.W. 924, 91 Tex. Crim. 164, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullins-v-state-texcrimapp-1922.