Opinion
No. 19088.
Delivered June 9, 1937.
1. — Bill of Exceptions — Continuance.
Where no bill of exceptions is brought forward to the action of the trial court in overruling defendant's application for a continuance, the action of the trial court in denying the continuance is not subject to review.
2. — Theft — Evidence — Previous Convictions.
In prosecution for theft of property over the value of $50.00, evidence held sufficient to support averments in the indictment that, prior to the alleged commission of the present offense, defendant had been twice convicted of felonies less than capital, plead as a basis for imposition of increased penalty.
Appeal from the District Court of Travis County. Tried below before the Hon. W. F. Robertson, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for theft; penalty, because of repetition of offenses, confinement in penitentiary for life.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
Earl Shelton, R. C. Wilson, and Margaret Waters, all of Austin, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
The offense is theft of property over the value of fifty dollars. The indictment embraced averments to the effect that appellant had, prior to the alleged commission of the present offense, been twice convicted of felonies less than capital. Because of repetition of offenses, the penalty was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life.
No bills of exception are brought forward.
The proof on the part of the State was sufficient to warrant the conclusion that appellant stole an automobile of the value of $125.00 from E. G. Stone. Testifying in his own behalf, appellant denied his guilt. Also his testimony raised the issue of alibi.
The State introduced proof showing appellant's previous convictions.
In his brief appellant complains of the action of the trial court in overruling his first application for a continuance. In view of the fact that no bill of exception is brought forward, the action of the trial court in denying the continuance is not subject to review.
We are unable to agree with appellant's contention that the proof is insufficient to support the averments in the indictment touching the previous convictions. It appears that one of said convictions was in the district court of Smith County on the 8th of April, 1931, while the other conviction was in the district court of Johnson County on the 5th of June, 1934.
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.