Case ID: sw_247/html/0281-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J. LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CARTER v. STATE.
    (No. 7343.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 17, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1923.)
    Criminal law <⅜=>1099(10)— Statement of facts must be authenticated by trial judge.
    A statement of facts authenticated by the trial judge is essential to authorize a consideration of the facts. Hence a paper denominated as a statement of facts, bearing neither the signature of counsel nor approval of the trial judge, will not be considered.
    Appeal from District Court, Harrison county; P. O. Beard, Tudge.
    Will Carter was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Hall, Brown & Hall, of Marshall, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

The paper denominated as the statement of facts bears neither the signature of counsel nor the approval of the trial judge. A statement of facts authenticated by the trial judge is essential to authorize a consideration of the facts.

There are bills of exceptions complaining of the manner in which the jury was instructed. In the absence of knowledge of the facts, the merits of the exceptions to the charge or to the refusal of special charges cannot he determined.

Finding nothing in the record which warrants á reversal, the judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

At a former day of this term this case was affirmed. Appellant now files what is called his motion to withdraw the statement of facts for approval by the trial judge by nunc pro tune order, and asks for a rehearing. We regret that we do not know of any authority that would justify the judge of the trial court in making a nunc-pro tune order directing the approval of a statement of facts after the expiration of the 90 days from the adjournment of the trial term of the court below. There appears no effort made to show that in fact the judge of the trial court did approve the said statement of facts, but for some reason failed to enter thereon his approval. Knowing no reason, and none being shown, why a rehearing should be granted or permission given to withdraw the statement of facts for the entry of an order which would appear to he without authority, the motion for rehearing will he overruled.