Case ID: sw_252/html/0525-01.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

HINTON v. STATE.
    (No. 7674.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 25, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied June 20, 1923.)
    I. Criminal law <S=I097(1) — Affirmance ordered where bifis of exceptions depend on state- ' ment of facts absent from record.
    Where the record is without statement of facts, and the bills of exceptions relate to such matters as depend for their soundness on the facts, the appellate court cannot conclude that the bill shows error, and conviction will be affirmed.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    
      .2. Criminal law <gfc=> 1099(9) — Agreement of counsel to file statement of facts back as of time within statute not recognized.
    In view of the duty of appellant to follow diligently the preparation and presentation of •documents necessary to perfect an appeal, an agreement of counsel that a statement of facts should be made out and presented and filed back as within the time recognized by the statute for such filing will not be recognized.
    Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; P. A. Martin, Judge.
    John Hinton was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    H. R. Bishop, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of Wichita county of receiving and concealing stolen property, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.

The, record is before us without a statement of facts. The bills of exception relate to such matters as depend for their soundness upon the facts. Having no facts before us, we cannot conclude same show any error. The indictment and charge of the court being regular, an affirmance will be ordered.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant fifes a motion for rehearing setting up that there was an agreement between the attorneys for appellant and a gentleman who was then representing the state, the substance of which was that, when the statement of facts should be made out and presented, same might be filed back as within the time granted by statute for such filing. We regret we cannot recognize such an agreement. The duty is on one appealing his case to diligently follow the preparation and presentation of the documents necessary to properly perfect such appeal. The law requires that státement of facts and bills of exception be filed within certain times. If agreements could be made by attorneys for the respective sides that such papers might be actually filed at other times, but dated back, and the courts would enforce such agreements, the statute would in effect be thus abrogated. It is stated in the motion that a statement of facts was prepared by the appellant and left with state’s attorney, but there is no statement as to when the same was so left.

We fegret that we are not in position, in view of the plain declaration of our statute, to grant appellant’s motion, and same will be overruled. 
      @=x>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes