Opinion
No. 20103.
Delivered January 25, 1939. Rehearing Denied March 8, 1939.
1. — Theft — Third Conviction for Felony.
Where the indictment, charging theft of an automobile, was sufficient to charge accused with having theretofore been twice convicted of a felony less than capital, punishment assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for life was authorized.
2. — Record — Statement of Facts or Bills of Exception.
Where the record was without a statement of facts or bills of exception, no question was presented for review.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.3. — Appeal — Continuance.
Court of Criminal Appeals could not review claimed error in overruling defendant's motion for continuance, where motion was not shown in the record, and apparently was oral.
4. — Felony — Less Than Capital — Counsel.
It is not incumbent on the trial court to furnish counsel to one charged with a felony less than capital.
Appeal from District Court of Eastland County. Hon. Geo. L. Davenport, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for theft of an automobile under an indictment charging conviction of two previous occasions of a felony less than capital; penalty, confinement in penitentiary for life.
Affirmed
The opinion states the case.
P. L. Crossley, of Eastland, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
Conviction is for theft of an automobile; punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for life.
The indictment, which we deem sufficient, charges that appellant had theretofore on two occasions been convicted of a felony less than capital. Consequently the punishment which he received was authorized by Art. 63, P. C. See, also Arnold v. State, 127 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 74 S.W.2d , 997; Belton v. State, 130 Tex.Crim. Rep..
The record is before us without a statement of facts or bill of exceptions. Hence no question is presented for review.
The judgment of the trial court is 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.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant files a motion herein complaining of the overruling of his motion for a continuance. We find no such motion in the record, and we gather therefrom that same was an oral motion. Of course we have no way of reviewing such a motion. He complains also because of the fact that he was tried without benefit of counsel, and that he was friendless and alone. These matters are presented only in his motion. It is not incumbent on the trial court to furnish counsel to one charged with a felony less than capital. Art. 494, C. C. P.
We see no reason for a further review of this case. In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to review the same.
The motion will be overruled.