Weeks v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Weeks v. State

296 S.W. 599, 107 Tex. Crim. 329, 1927 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 423

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 22, 1927

DocketNo. 10893.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 296 S.W. 599 (Weeks 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

Weeks v. State, 296 S.W. 599, 107 Tex. Crim. 329, 1927 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 423 (Tex. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BETHEA, Judge. —

The appellant was convicted for the offense of burglary, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception and no objections to the court’s charge. The only question for our consideration is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

The case was tried at the November term, 1926, before the Honorable W. R. Ely, Judge of the Forty-second Judicial District. The statement of facts was examined and approved on March 10, 1927, by Honorable Jas. P. Stinson, Special Judge of the Forty-second Judicial District. There is nothing in the record showing that the statement of facts was ever presented to Judge Ely, and no reason is shown why same was not so done. Under Art. 2248, Rev. Civ. Stats., 1925, it is necessary that the judge who tried the case should approve the statement of facts. There is but one exception to this rule and that is where the judge who tried the case dies before the time for such approval, in which event the same may be approved by his successor, as provided by Art. 2288, Rev. Civ. Stats., 1925.

With the record in this condition, the statement of facts can *330 not be considered. Richardson v. State, 71 Tex. Crim. Rep. 111, 158 S. W. 517; Quinney v. State, 86 Tex. Crim. Rep. 358, 216 S. W. 882.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been 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

BETHEA, Judge. —

The appellant was convicted for the offense of burglary, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception and no objections to the court’s charge. The only question for our consideration is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

The case was tried at the November term, 1926, before the Honorable W. R. Ely, Judge of the Forty-second Judicial District. The statement of facts was examined and approved on March 10, 1927, by Honorable Jas. P. Stinson, Special Judge of the Forty-second Judicial District. There is nothing in the record showing that the statement of facts was ever presented to Judge Ely, and no reason is shown why same was not so done. Under Art. 2248, Rev. Civ. Stats., 1925, it is necessary that the judge who tried the case should approve the statement of facts. There is but one exception to this rule and that is where the judge who tried the case dies before the time for such approval, in which event the same may be approved by his successor, as provided by Art. 2288, Rev. Civ. Stats., 1925.

With the record in this condition, the statement of facts can *330 not be considered. Richardson v. State, 71 Tex. Crim. Rep. 111, 158 S. W. 517; Quinney v. State, 86 Tex. Crim. Rep. 358, 216 S. W. 882.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 S.W. 599, 107 Tex. Crim. 329, 1927 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weeks-v-state-texcrimapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack