Case ID: sw_287/html/1114-05.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY, J. HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C. A. LINDLEY v. STATE.
    (No. 10119.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 23, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1926.)
    Commissioner’s Decision. Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; J. M. Melson, Judge.
    Ramey &. Davidson, of Sulphur Springs, for appellant. Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeek, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense is unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor and the punishment is one year in the penitentiary. The notice of appeal was given on the 12th day of November, 1925, and the statement of facts and bills of exceptions were not filed in the trial court until February 21, 1926, or more than 90 days thereafter. We have repeatedly held that a statement of facts and bills of exceptions, filed more than 90 days after the notice of appeal is given, cannot be considered by this court. In this ruling we are following the plain terms of the statutes. Section 5, art. 760, 1925 Revision C. C. P. In the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exceptions, there is no error manifest by this record, and the judgment is in all things 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 Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant insists that the charge on circumstantial evidence was fundamentally erroneous, and demands a reversal, even in the absence of the facts proven. We confess our inability to discover anything wrong with the charge in question, or to find any substantial difference between • that given by the court and the one requested by appellant. The charge given is almost an exact copy of the one set out in Branch’s Criminal Laws of Texas, § 204, and approved in Baldez v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 413, 35 S. W. 664; Boggs v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 83, 41 S. W. 642; Trevino v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 66, 41 S. W. 608; Blount v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 64 S. W. 1050; Reeseman v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 430, 128 S. W. 1126; Mosely v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 90, 127 S. W. 178. The motion for rehearing is overruled.