Case ID: sw_300/html/0941-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MURPHREE v. STATE.
    (No. 11222.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 30, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1928.
    Criminal law <§=>1090(7) — In absence of bill of exceptions complaining of refusal of continuance, trial court’s action could not be reviewed.
    In absence of bill of exceptions complaining of court’s refusal to grant continuance in theft prosecution, trial court’s action in declining to continue case could not be brought before Court of Criminal Appeals for review.
    Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; Geo. L. Davenport, Judge.
    Sid Murphree was convicted for theft of an, automobile, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Chastain & Judkins, of Eastland, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for theft of an' automobile; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

The record appears here without any statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment correctly charges the offense, and is followed by the charge of the court.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant complains in his motion of the fact that he made an application for continuance, which was refused by the court below, and that we failed to taire note of same in our former opinion. We do not find in the record a bill of exceptions complaining of such refusal. In the absence of such bill, the action of the trial court in declining to continue the ease c-annot be brought before us for review.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <J=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes