Opinion
No. 19202.
Delivered November 10, 1937. Rehearing Denied January 12, 1938.
1. — New Trial — Appeal.
Where the indictment appeared regular and properly presented, evidence was not brought forward for review, no complaint of the rulings of the trial court was presented by bills of exception, or otherwise, Court of Criminal Appeals could not appraise matters set forth in motion for new trial, and judgment of conviction is affirmed.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.2. — Affidavit — Rehearing — Statement of Facts.
Affidavit in defendant's motion for rehearing, following affirmance of conviction for absence of statement of facts, bills of exception, or brief, stating that accused thought his appeal was being prepared by his attorney, but containing no statement that defendant had applied for a statement of facts, made arrangements therefor, or filed an affidavit relative thereto, as provided by statute, stated no ground for rehearing.
Appeal from the District Court of Travis County. Hon. Roy C. Archer, Judge.
Appeal from conviction for burglary; penalty, confinement in penitentiary for six years.
Affirmed.
The opinion states the case.
Earl Shelton, of Austin, and Ray Holder, of Dallas, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
The offense is burglary; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for six years.
The indictment appears regular and properly presented. The evidence heard in the trial court is not brought forward for review. No complaint of the rulings of the court has been presented by bill of exception or otherwise. In the absence of the testimony adduced upon the trial, this court is unable to appraise the matters set forth in the motion for new trial.
No error having been preceived justifying a reversal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Heretofore this cause was affirmed, there being no statement of facts nor bills of exception filed herein, nor brief for appellant. The appellant files an affidavit in his motion for rehearing stating, among other things, that he thought his appeal was being prepared by his attorney. Nowhere therein does he state that he had applied for a statement of facts, made arrangements therefor, or filed an affidavit relative thereto as provided by statute. We see nothing in his motion nor affidavit that would call upon this court to grant this motion. It is, therefore, overruled.
Overruled.