From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mayo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 14, 1930
27 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930)

Opinion

No. 13217.

Delivered April 9, 1930. Rehearing denied May 14, 1930.

1. — Intoxicating Liquor — Statement of Facts.

Statement of facts filed after the expiration of ninety days allowed by the court is filed too late and will not be considered.

2. — Sentence.

Where the trial court failed to make application of Indeterminate Sentence Law, the judgment and sentence will be reformed by the appellate court.

Appeal from the District Court of Smith County. Tried below before the Hon. J. R. Warren, Judge.

Appeal from the conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The opinion states the case.

Gentry Gray of Tyler and Jones Jones of Mineola, for appellant.

A. A. Dawson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.


The offense is transporting intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Motion for new trial was overruled on July 5, 1929, at which time an order was entered giving to appellant ninety days in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. Such period expired October 3, 1929. The statement of facts and bills of exception were filed October 12, 1929, which was too late. Art. 760, C. C. P.; Tillar v. State, 13 S.W.2d 368.

In sentencing appellant, the court failed to make application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The judgment and sentence are reformed in order that it may be shown that appellant is condemned to confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than two years.

As reformed, 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.

ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING.


Appellant brings forward a supplement transcript which contains his exceptions to the court's charge. As pointed out in the original opinion, the statement of facts was filed too late and is not entitled to consideration. Whether the matters complained of constitute reversible error depends upon a consideration of the evidence. Texas Jurisprudence, vol. 4, p. 239.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.

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.


Summaries of

Mayo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 14, 1930
27 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930)
Case details for

Mayo v. State

Case Details

Full title:ELMER MAYO v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: May 14, 1930

Citations

27 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930)
27 S.W.2d 811

Citing Cases

Victorian v. State

Not having been filed within the time allowed by law and by the trial court's order, the statement of facts…

Roberson v. State

This applies whether the term of court is required to end in eight weeks or may continue longer. See Mayo v.…