Case ID: tex-crim_81/html/0049-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PRENDERGAST, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ernest Porter v. The State.
    No. 4391.
    Decided March 14, 1917.
    Adultery — Statement of Facts — Practice on Appeal — County Court.
    A longer time than twenty days after adjournment of the County Court can not be given to file a statement of facts, even though the court enters an order allowing thirty days, and where the statement of facts is filed after twenty days it can not be considered on appeal. Following DeFriend v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 329, and other cases.
    Appeal from the County Court of Ellis. Tried below before the Hon. W. M, Tidwell.
    Appeal from a conviction of adultery; penalty, a fine of one hundred dollars.
    The opinion states the case.'
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of adultery and assessed the lowest penalty, a fine of $100.

The term of court at which he was convicted convened September 4 and adjourned for the term' December 2, 1916. Appellant was tried and convicted October 3. His motion for new trial was overruled October 21, at which time he gave notice of appeal to this court and entered into a recognizance, and on that date the court entered an order allowing thirty days after adjournment to file a statement of facts. The court could not grant longer than twenty days. The statement of facts herein was not filed until December 30, twenty-eight days after adjournment.

This court has uniformly and in a great number of decisions held that longer than twenty days after adjournment can not be given, and even though the court enters an order allowing thirty days, no statement of facts filed after twenty days can be considered. It is unnecessary to collate the great number of these decisions, but see DeFriend v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 329, and eases cited therein; Cranfill v. State, 80 Texas Crim. Rep., 292, 189 S. W. Rep., 482; Hamilton v. State, id.

Hothing is presented which can be reviewed in the absence of a statement of facts.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.