Case ID: sw_288/html/0198-01.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

BURLESON v. STATE.
    (No. 10393.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 10, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>l099(6) — Statement of facts, filed 127 days after notice of appeal was given, cannot be considered on appeal (Code. Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760).
    Under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760, statement of facts filed 127 days after notice of appeal was given, cannot be considered by appellate court, in absence of excuse for delay.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;>l097(5) — Vice in charge held not reviewable In absence of statement of facts.
    Where no statement of facts was filed in time, objection that charge omitted defensive issues cannot be determined.
    Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; C. O. Hamlin, Judge.
    Charles Burleson was convicted for burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    V. L. Shurtleff, of Breckenridge, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty.. of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for burglary, punishment being two years in the penitentiary. The statement of facts was not filed until 127 days after notice of appeal was given. No reason appears why it was not filed within the time required by the statute. It cannot be considered. Article 760, C. C. P. 1925. Bailey v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 150, 282 S. W. 804; Johnson v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 884, 283 S. W. 807.

There appears to be no merit in the criticism of the indictment. It is in the usual form charging burglary and is sufficient.

No bills of exception are found in the record save those complaining of the court’s charge. We observe no vice in the charge,unless it be that it omitted some defensive issue, which of course cannot be appraised without having the facts available. But we find where the court gave three special charges at appellant’s instance, all of which did present defensive issues and may have been given in response ter the objection urged.

The judgment is affirmed.