Case ID: tex-crim_92/html/0382-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

R. E. Lee v. The State.
    No. 7295.
    Decided October 18, 1922.
    Embezzlement — Motion for New Trial — Bill of Exceptions — Argument of Counsel.
    In the absence of a hill of exceptions, a complaint in the motion for new trial to the argument of counsel cannot be considered on appeal, and the indictment being sufficient and the judgment regular, the judgment must be final.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Robt. B. Seay.
    Appeal from a conviction of embezzlement, punishment two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County of embezzlement, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without- statement of facts or bills of exception. There is a lengthy motion for a new trial in which complaint is made of many matters alleged to have transpired in the course of the trial and especially during the argument. A part of what purports to be an address to the jury on the part of an attorney prosecuting the case, is made a part of said motion. In the absence of a bill of exceptions complaining of such matters we can not consider them at all. The indictment appearing to be in conformity with law, and no complaint being made of the charge of the court, no error appears, and the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.