Naranjo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Naranjo v. State

259 S.W. 938, 96 Tex. Crim. 649, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 164

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 12, 1924

DocketNo. 7985.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 S.W. 938 (Naranjo 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

Naranjo v. State, 259 S.W. 938, 96 Tex. Crim. 649, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 164 (Tex. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant is under conviction for rape with punishment of eight years confinement in the penitentiary assessed.

We regret to find the record in such condition that none of the questions sought to be raised by appellant may be considered. Upon overruling the motion for new trial the learned trial judge granted ninety days from the adjournment of court in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. The date of adjournment was March 10, 1923. The ninety days expired on June 8th. The statement of facts and bills of exception were filed on June 9th, being one day too late. On May 29th the judge made an order undertaking to extend the time thirty days beyond the 90 already given. This he had no power to do. Retza v. State, 95 Texas Crim. Rep., 491, 255 S. W. Rep., 423. The law requires the record to be filed in this court within ninety days. No reason for thé attempted extension beyond that time appears either in the request therefor or in the order granting it. For further authorities see those cited in Retza’s case (supra). For additional observations relative to diligence in perfecting records, see Clampitt v. State, 96 Texas Crim. Rep., 148, 256 S. W. Rep., 272, in which many authorities are collated.

The statement of facts and bills of exception not being subject to consideration the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant is under conviction for rape with punishment of eight years confinement in the penitentiary assessed.

We regret to find the record in such condition that none of the questions sought to be raised by appellant may be considered. Upon overruling the motion for new trial the learned trial judge granted ninety days from the adjournment of court in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. The date of adjournment was March 10, 1923. The ninety days expired on June 8th. The statement of facts and bills of exception were filed on June 9th, being one day too late. On May 29th the judge made an order undertaking to extend the time thirty days beyond the 90 already given. This he had no power to do. Retza v. State, 95 Texas Crim. Rep., 491, 255 S. W. Rep., 423. The law requires the record to be filed in this court within ninety days. No reason for thé attempted extension beyond that time appears either in the request therefor or in the order granting it. For further authorities see those cited in Retza’s case (supra). For additional observations relative to diligence in perfecting records, see Clampitt v. State, 96 Texas Crim. Rep., 148, 256 S. W. Rep., 272, in which many authorities are collated.

The statement of facts and bills of exception not being subject to consideration the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 S.W. 938, 96 Tex. Crim. 649, 1924 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naranjo-v-state-texcrimapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack