Case ID: sw_243/html/0986-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J. LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALLISON v. STATE.
    (No. 6940.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 14, 1922.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1922.)
    Criminal law <$=»1102 — Statement of facts stricken where no diligence required to perfect record.
    Where there were no bills of exception, and the statement of facts was not filed within 90 days after adjournment, and the diligence required to secure perfection of the record was entirely wanting, a motion to strike out the statement of- facts will be sustained.
    Appeal from District Court, Bell County; M. B. Blair, Judge.
    Vernon Allison was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. W. Thomas, of Rogers, and Robt. M. Lyler, of Cameron, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

At the October term, 1921, of the district court for Bell county appellant was convicted of burglary, and punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The trial term adjourned December 24, 1021., There are no bills of exception in the record,' and the statement of facts' wag' not filed in the lower court until May 29, 1922, more than 90 days after adjournment. Eor this reason the state has filed- a motion to strike out the statement of facts. This motion must be sustained unless it appears that appellant has been deprived of his statement of facts without fault on' his part. We find among the papers an affidavit of his attorney dated May 9, 1922, asserting that he had just then learned for the first time that no statement of fa'cts was in the record; that he had prepared one and mailed same from Rogers to the district attorney at Belton requesting him to file same with the clerk when approved by the trial judge. It is nowhere stated in the affidavit when this was done, and it does not appear that counsel ever followed the matter up, or made any inquiry relative to whether it had been received or filed. We are of opinion the diligence required to secure a perfecting of the record is entirely wanting, and the motion of the state will be sustained.

No fundamental errors appear upon the face of the' record, and the judgment must be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing. .

LATTIMORE, J.

At the last term of this court an affirmance was ordered in this case. After adjournment at said term a formal motion for rehearing was filed on behalf of appellant. When affirmed, the case was before us without proper statement of facts, and the record is still in the same unfortunate condition. Nothing appearing save the formal motion mentioned, the application for rehearing will be denied.