Case ID: sw2d_4/html/0973-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CLARK v. STATE.
    (No. 11494.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 4, 1928.
    Criminal law &wkey;!092(7) — Bills of exceptions, filed over 90 days after notice of appeal, are too late for consideration (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760).
    Under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760, bills of exceptions, not filed within 90 days after notice of appeal, are too late to form basis of complaint.
    Appeal from District Court, San Augustine County; V. H. Stark, Judge.
    James Clark was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    F. P. Adams, of Jasper, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Transporting intoxicating liquor is the offense; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The evidence of both the state and the appellant is to the effect that the appellant was in possession of a jar of whisky. That of the state supports the conclusion that the appellant transported the whisky. This was controverted by the appellant’s testimony and by that of his witnesses. The issue of fact thus presented for solution was submitted to the jury and determined in favor of the state.

In the record there are copied three bills of exceptions, all of which were filed November 15, 1927. The motion for new trial was overruled and notice of appeal given on the 11th day of August. Under the statute, but 90 days after notice of appeal are allowed within which to file the statement of facts and bills of exceptions. See article 760, C. C. P. 1925; McDowell v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 208, 271 S. W. 1116; Mann v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 210, 277 S. W. 1085; and other cases collated in Vernon’s Ann. Tex. C. C. P. 1925, vol. 3, Supplement, p. 13. The bills were too late to form the basis of complaint. They have been read, however, but we find naught in them which would authorize a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.