Case ID: sw2d_5/html/0990-01.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

FOGLEMAN v. STATE.
    (No. 11478.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 2, 1928.
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;1099 (6) — Statement of facts, filed over 90 days after denying new trial, came too late, and cannot be considered on appeal.
    Statement of facts, filed more than 90 days after overruling of motion for new trial, came too late, and cannot be considered on appeal.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;l 182 — Conviction under .regular indictment must be affirmed', where record contained no bills of exception, and statement of facts could not be considered.
    Where record was devoid of bills of exception, and statement of facts could not be considered on appeal as filed too late, and indictment was regular and followed by charge of court, judgment and sentence convicting defendant for burglary, correct in form, must be affirmed. '
    Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Richard I.. Munroe, Judge.
    J. P. Fogleman was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    John N. Gauntt, of Waco, for appellant.
    • A'. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for burglary; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The record is devoid of bills of exception. The motion for new trial was overruled June 3d. The statement of facts was filed October 1st. Manifestly this was more than 90 days after the overruling of the motion for new trial. Coming too late, we are unable to consider the statements of facts. The indictment is regular, and is followed by the charge of the court. The judgment and sentence are in correct form.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.