Case ID: sw_270/html/0853-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAMSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9326.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 1, 1925.)
    
      1. Criminal law <&wkey;l090(7) — Bill of exceptions necessary for review of denial of continuánce.
    Denial of continuance cannot be reviewed, in the absence of bill of exceptions complaining thereof.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 122(4) — Statement of facts necessary for review of denial of instructions.
    Denial of special charges cannot be reviewed, without a statement of facts showing their applicability.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
    Charlie Williamson was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in criminal district court No. 2 of Dallas county of receiving and concealing stolen property, and his punishment fixed at four years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts. The court overruled appellant’s application for a continuance, Which action cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions complaining-thereof. There are a number of special charges which were requested and refused, the applicability of which could only be determined by us from an examination of the facts, and in the absence of a statement of facts we are unable to appraise the possible error in the refusal of such special charges. There are no formal bills of exception in the record.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed. 
      
       <i&wkey;Fbr. other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes