From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gill v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Apr 21, 1948
210 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 1948)

Opinion

No. 23956.

Delivered March 10, 1948. Rehearing Denied April 21, 1948.

1. — Statement of Facts — Filing — Time of.

Appellant had 90 days from the overruling of his motion for a new trial in which to file a statement of facts, and a statement of facts filed after the expiration of the 90 days will not be considered.

2. — Statement of Facts — Absence — Effect.

In the absence of a statement of facts which can be considered, Court of Criminal Appeals cannot determine the insufficiency of the evidence or appraise bills of exception.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

3. — Statement of Facts — Failure to File — Timely.

Failure of defendant's attorney to perform his duty by filing statement of facts in time is charged to the defendant, and the admission of such failure by the attorney can give no force to the excuse for failure to file the statement of facts within the time prescribed by law.

Appeal from District Court of Kimble County. Hon. J. B. Randolph, Judge.

Appeal from conviction for forgery; penalty, confinement in the state penitentiary for two years.

Affirmed.

Albert W. Searcy, of Junction, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.


The offense is forgery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

It appears from the record that appellant's motion for a new trial was heard and overruled on the 13th day of August, 1947, at which time he gave notice of appeal to this Court. Under Art. 760, C. C. P., he had 90 days in which to file a statement of facts. However, the statement of facts was not filed in the court below until the 21st day of November, 1947, which was more than 90 days after he gave notice of appeal. Therefore, the same cannot be considered by this Court. See Robinson v. State, 116 Tex.Crim. R.. In the absence of a statement of facts, we cannot determine the insufficiency of the evidence, nor can we properly appraise his requested special charges or bills of exception.

Appellant complains of the action of the trial court in overruling his motion to quash the second count in the indictment. The copy of the indictment as the same appears in the record is sufficient to charge him with knowingly passing a forged instrument. However, the court submitted the case to the jury on the first count alone in which he was charged with the offense of forgery. Therefore, we overrule this complaint.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING.


The original opinion correctly disposes of the appeal. Appellant's attorney, however, has filed a motion for rehearing and attaches thereto his affidavit in which he takes the full responsibility for the failure to file the statement of facts within the time required by law. Unfortunately for his client, the attorney's failure to perform his duty is charged to the client and proof of his failure — in this case the admission of the attorney — can give no force to excuse the failure to file the statement of facts within the time prescribed by law.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.


Summaries of

Gill v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Apr 21, 1948
210 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 1948)
Case details for

Gill v. State

Case Details

Full title:WRAY GILL v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Apr 21, 1948

Citations

210 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. Crim. App. 1948)
210 S.W.2d 170

Citing Cases

Rushing v. State

Hines v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 248 S.W.2d 156. Appellant's remaining contentions cannot be approaised in the…

Hamilton v. State

Following the jury verdict finding appellant guilty, the issue of punishment was submitted to the court…