Case ID: sw_241/html/1023-03.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

GUMM v. STATE.
    (No. 7012.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 31, 1922.)
    1. Criminal lav/ <3=1092(7) — Bills of exceptions not filed within time allowed will not be considered.
    Under Code Cr. Pioc. 1911, art. 845, providing that in the absence of an order extending the time bills of exception must be filed within 30 days after the overruling of the motion for new trial, bills which were filed three days after the time limit fixed by a court order cannot be considered.
    2. Criminal law <3=1099(10) — Statements of fact which are not authenticated cannot be considered. ,
    Statements of fact which are not signed by counsel nor the trial judge cannot be considered on appeal.
    Appeal from- Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Robert B. Seay, Judge.
    
      O. E. Gumm was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J..

Conviction is for assault with intent to murder; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of three years.

The motion for new trial was overruled on the 22d day of December, 1921. The two bills of exceptions found in the record were filed March 23, 1922. In the absence of an order extending the time within which to fiie the bills, the statute requires that they be filed within 30 days from the date on which the motion for new trial was overruled. Because they were filed more than 30 days thereafter, the state objects to their consideration. See article 845, Code of Crim. Procedure. We find that on February 22, 1922, the court entered an order allowing until March 20th within which to file the bills of exceptions. This order would not authorize their consideration, since they were not filed until the 23d day of March.

The state also objects to the consideration of the statement of facts for the reason that it is not authenticated in any manner. As we find it here, it is signed by neither counsel nor the trial judge.

In the absence of bills of exceptions and statement of facts which may be considered, there is nothing pointed out for review, and we have discovered nothing of a fundamental nature which requires discussion.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <@=For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes