Case ID: sw2d_5/html/0770-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOLT v. STATE.
    (No. 11661.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 25, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;l 131(7) — On showing that sentence was pronounced, appeal, dismissed for lack of such showing, should be reinstated on appellant’s motion.
    On appeal from conviction, where second supplemental transcript filed with appellant's motion to reinstate appeal showed that sentence was in fact pronounced against defendant, appeal, previously dismissed for failure to show that sentence had been pronounced, should be reinstated.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;4092(7)— Bills of exception filed after expiration of 60 days allowed cannot be considered on appeal.
    On appeal from conviction for driving automobile on highway while under influence of intoxicating liquor, bills of exception, not approved by trial judge, and not filed until after 60 days allowed for filing them from overruling motion for new trial, cannot be considered on appeal.
    Appeal from District Court, Rockwall County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    On motion to reinstate appeal.
    Motion granted, and judgment of conviction affirmed.
    For former opinion dismissing appeal, see 4 S. W. (2d) 547.
    J. Frank Wilson, of Dallas, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant has filed a motion to reinstate his appeal, accompanying same with a second supplemental transcript showing that sentence was in fact pronounced against him. The appeal is therefore reinstated.

It is not necessary to state the facts. Some of them indicate disgusting vulgarity in the presence of ladies. The jury accepted the state’s evidence as true which attributed the language to appellant and authorized the jury to find that he was intoxicated. Appellant and his witnesses attribute the language to one of appellant’s companions, and deny that appellant was drunk. The jury has settled the issue of fact in favor of the state.

The trial term of court adjourned on the 11th day of November. Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled on the 7th day of November, and 60 days’ time allowed him in which to file bills of exception. A number of bills of exception are contained in the first supplemental transcript. Some of them were filed on the 1st day of February, and others on the 7th day of February. The 60 days allowed for filing them expired on the 6th day of January. None of the bills was approved by the trial judge or filed in the lower court until long after the time given had expired. The bills cannot be considered.

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