Opinion
No. 11662.
Delivered May 23, 1928.
Theft — Bill of Exception — Filing Must Be Shown.
Where a bill of exception does not appear to have been filed in the trial court, and within the time prescribed by law, this court is not permitted to review the matter presented by such bill of exception. See Crosby v. State, 263 S.W. 916, and other cases cited.
Appeal from the District Court of Hansford County. Tried below before the Hon. W. C. Strong, Special Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for theft, penalty two years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief filed for appellant.
A. A. Dawson of Canton, State's Attorney, for the State.
The offense is theft of property over the value of fifty dollars, the punishment confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
Appellant brings forward one bill of exception which does not appear to have been filed in the trial court. Unless said bill was a filed paper, and was filed within the time prescribed by law, this court would be unauthorized to consider it. The record failing to show its filing, we are not permitted under the decisions of this court to review the matter presented by said bill of exception. Crosby v. State, 263 S.W. 916; Childress v. State, 241 S.W. 1029; Oliver v. State, 124 S.W. 637.
There were no exceptions to the court's charge. The evidence is sufficient to show the theft by appellant from one W. W. Wilmoth of three sets of harness of the value of $150. The record discloses that shortly after the stolen property was missed by the owner appellant and two others were found in possession thereof. Appellant failed to testify in his own behalf.
The evidence being sufficient to sustain the conviction, the judgment 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.