Pate v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Pate v. State

53 S.W.2d 63, 122 Tex. Crim. 26, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 619

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 1, 1932

DocketNo. 15250.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 S.W.2d 63 (Pate 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

Pate v. State, 53 S.W.2d 63, 122 Tex. Crim. 26, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 619 (Tex. 1932).

Pincite

Opinions

*27 CALHOUN, Judge.

The offense, cattle theft; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant’s motion for new trial in this case was overruled on November 6, 1931, and at this time notice of appeal was given, at which time appellant was allowed 50 days in which to prepare and file a statement of facts and bills of exception. The statement of facts was not filed in the trial court until February 23, 1932, which was 109 days after notice of appeal had been given. On the 28th day of December, 1931, the trial court made an order extending the time in which to file a statement of facts and bills of exception and allowed 90 days from the date of adjournment of court on December 5, 1931. The statement of facts was filed within 90 days from the adjournment of court. The time for filing bills of exception and statement of facts may not be extended by the trial court beyond the 90-day period provided by statute. Article 760, C. C. P.; Tillar v. State, 111 Texas Crim. Rep., 410, 13 S. W. (2d) 368. So far as the court’s order gave 90 days from adjournment had the effect of extending the time beyond that permitted by law, it was unauthorized. Simpson v. State, 110 Texas Crim. Rep., 399, 10 S. W. (2d) 567, and cases therein cited; Finley v. State, 115 Texas Crim. Rep., 240, 29 S. W. (2d) 346. The statement of facts wás filed too late to be entitled to consideration by this court. See Simmons v. State, 116 Texas Crim. Rep., 68, 28 S. W. (2d) 1084; Steelman v. State, 106 Texas Crim. Rep., 214, 291 S. W., 549. We also note that the statement of facts does not show to have been approved by the trial judge.

No bills of exception appear in the record. Other complaints are made in appellant’s brief of the overruling of a motion for a continuance and also overruling appellant’s application for a change of venue. These are not brought forward by bills of exception and cannot be considered in the absence of bills of exception.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has ben examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

*27 CALHOUN, Judge.

The offense, cattle theft; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Appellant’s motion for new trial in this case was overruled on November 6, 1931, and at this time notice of appeal was given, at which time appellant was allowed 50 days in which to prepare and file a statement of facts and bills of exception. The statement of facts was not filed in the trial court until February 23, 1932, which was 109 days after notice of appeal had been given. On the 28th day of December, 1931, the trial court made an order extending the time in which to file a statement of facts and bills of exception and allowed 90 days from the date of adjournment of court on December 5, 1931. The statement of facts was filed within 90 days from the adjournment of court. The time for filing bills of exception and statement of facts may not be extended by the trial court beyond the 90-day period provided by statute. Article 760, C. C. P.; Tillar v. State, 111 Texas Crim. Rep., 410, 13 S. W. (2d) 368. So far as the court’s order gave 90 days from adjournment had the effect of extending the time beyond that permitted by law, it was unauthorized. Simpson v. State, 110 Texas Crim. Rep., 399, 10 S. W. (2d) 567, and cases therein cited; Finley v. State, 115 Texas Crim. Rep., 240, 29 S. W. (2d) 346. The statement of facts wás filed too late to be entitled to consideration by this court. See Simmons v. State, 116 Texas Crim. Rep., 68, 28 S. W. (2d) 1084; Steelman v. State, 106 Texas Crim. Rep., 214, 291 S. W., 549. We also note that the statement of facts does not show to have been approved by the trial judge.

No bills of exception appear in the record. Other complaints are made in appellant’s brief of the overruling of a motion for a continuance and also overruling appellant’s application for a change of venue. These are not brought forward by bills of exception and cannot be considered in the absence of bills of exception.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has ben examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 S.W.2d 63, 122 Tex. Crim. 26, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pate-v-state-texcrimapp-1932.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack