Case ID: sw2d_51/html/0598-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CALHOUN, J. CHRISTIAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHNSON v. STATE.
    No. 15415.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 1, 1932.
    Rehearing Denied June 24, 1932.
    John N. Gauntt and Joe'W. Taylor, both of Waco, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   CALHOUN, J.

The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for six years.

No bills of exception are found in the record. Notice of appeal was given and entered of record on December 23, 1931. The statement of facts was filed in the trial court on April 25, 1932, which was more than ninety days after notice of appeal was given. This was too late under the provisions of article 760, C. C. P. Davis v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 348, 287 S. W. 1100. However, w&have read the statement of facts, and if we had been authorized to consider same, we would feel constrained to hold the evidenco sufficient to support the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission, of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, J.

Appellant did not object to the testimony of the officers touching the result of the' search of his automobile. However, he takes the position that the statement of facts shows that the search was illegal, and insists that notwithstanding the evidence was admitted upon the trial without objection, this court should reverse the judgment if there is no other evidence in the record than that which might have been eliminated by proper objection at the time it was tendered by the-state. The holding in Wilson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 48 S.W.(2d) 282, where the identical question was considered, is controlling. It was there held that the position taken by the-appellant could not be sustained.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges-of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.