Peters v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Peters v. State

46 S.W.2d 706, 119 Tex. Crim. 102, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 30

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 17, 1932

DocketNo. 14905

StatusPublished

This text of 46 S.W.2d 706 (Peters 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

Peters v. State, 46 S.W.2d 706, 119 Tex. Crim. 102, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 30 (Tex. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Conspiracy to make a false instrument with intent to defraud is the offense, as denounced by title 19, chapter 1 (articles 1622-1629), P. C., 1925; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The trial took place at a term of the district court of Webb county which adjourned on the 4th day of July, 1931. Notice of appeal was entered on the same day.

There are a number of bills of exception in the record which were filed in the trial court on the 3rd day of October, 1931. On the same day, the statement of facts was filed with the clerk of the trial court.

The state’s attorney before this court objects to the consideration of the statement of facts and bills of exception upon the ground that the statute, article 760, subdivision 5, C. C. P., 1925, precludes the consideration of bills of exception and statement of facts filed more than ninety days after notice of appeal is entered. The statute is specific in declaring that unless the statement' of facts or bills of exception are filed within ninety days from the date of notice of appeal, they cannot be considered. Such is the practice followed in this court, unless the delay is shown to have resulted from some cause not within the control of the appellant and not due to lack of diligence upon his part. The subject is treated in Vernon’s Ann. Tex. C. C. P., vol. 3, p. 110, note 36. See also supple[103]*103ment to the volume mentioned, page 20, note 36, citing many cases, including Artho v. State, 108 Texas Crim. Rep., 463, 1 S. W. (2d) 629; Brown v. State, 111 Texas Crim. Rep., 612, 13 S. W., 372; Roberson v. State, 116 Texas Crim. Rep., 273, 32 S. W. (2d) 478.

Without knowledge of the evidence heard, this court is not in a position to review the complaints of the rulings of the trial court. There being nothing in the record authorizing a reversal of the judgment, we are compelled to order its affirmance.

Affirmed.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Conspiracy to make a false instrument with intent to defraud is the offense, as denounced by title 19, chapter 1 (articles 1622-1629), P. C., 1925; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The trial took place at a term of the district court of Webb county which adjourned on the 4th day of July, 1931. Notice of appeal was entered on the same day.

There are a number of bills of exception in the record which were filed in the trial court on the 3rd day of October, 1931. On the same day, the statement of facts was filed with the clerk of the trial court.

The state’s attorney before this court objects to the consideration of the statement of facts and bills of exception upon the ground that the statute, article 760, subdivision 5, C. C. P., 1925, precludes the consideration of bills of exception and statement of facts filed more than ninety days after notice of appeal is entered. The statute is specific in declaring that unless the statement' of facts or bills of exception are filed within ninety days from the date of notice of appeal, they cannot be considered. Such is the practice followed in this court, unless the delay is shown to have resulted from some cause not within the control of the appellant and not due to lack of diligence upon his part. The subject is treated in Vernon’s Ann. Tex. C. C. P., vol. 3, p. 110, note 36. See also supple[103]*103ment to the volume mentioned, page 20, note 36, citing many cases, including Artho v. State, 108 Texas Crim. Rep., 463, 1 S. W. (2d) 629; Brown v. State, 111 Texas Crim. Rep., 612, 13 S. W., 372; Roberson v. State, 116 Texas Crim. Rep., 273, 32 S. W. (2d) 478.

Without knowledge of the evidence heard, this court is not in a position to review the complaints of the rulings of the trial court. There being nothing in the record authorizing a reversal of the judgment, we are compelled to order its affirmance.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 S.W.2d 706, 119 Tex. Crim. 102, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-state-texcrimapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack