Case ID: sw_259/html/0938-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NARANJO v. STATE.
    (No. 7985.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 12, 1924.)
    Criminal law <§=>1092(9), 1099(6) — Trial court cannot extend time for filing statement of facts and bill of exceptions beyond 90 days after adjournment.
    Where the trial court granted 90 days from adjournment in which to file the statement of facts and bills of exception, and they were filed one day after the expiration of the 90-day period, they cannot be considered on appeal, though the trial court after its adjournment made an order purporting to extend the time 30 days beyond the 90-day period.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Cameron County; A. W. Cunningham, Judge.
    Victor Naranjo was convicted of rape, and be appeals.
    Affirmed.
    . Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. 'Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for tbe State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant is under conviction for rape, with punishment of 8 years’ confinement in tbe penitentiary assessed.

We regret to find tbe record in such condition that none of tbe questions sought to be raised by appellant may be considered. Upon overruling the motion for new trial, the learned trial judge granted 90 days from tbe adjournment of court in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. Tbe date of adjournment was March 10, 1923. Tbe 90 days expired on June Stb. Tbe statement of facts and bills of exception were filed on June 9th, being one day too late. On May 29th tbe judge made an order undertaking to extend tbe time 30 days beyond the 90 already given. This be bad no power to do. Retza v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 255 S. W. 423. Tbe law requires tbe record to be filed in this court within 90 days. No reason for the attempted extension beyond that time appears either in tbe request therefor or in tbe order granting it. Eor further authorities see those cited in Retza’s Case • (supra). Eor additional observations relative to diligence in perfecting records, see Clampitt v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 256 S. W. 272, in which many authorities are collated.

Tbe statement of facts and bills of exception not being subject to consideration, the judgment must be affirmed.