Case ID: sw_248/html/0365-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KOEHAN et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 7402.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 7, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied March 7, 1923.)
    
      1. Criminal law <3=»l 090 (8)—Without statement of facts or bill of exceptions, errors in admission or rejection of evidence not reviewable.
    In the absence of any statement of facts or bill of exceptions, errors in admission or rejection of evidence cannot be considered.
    2. Criminal law <§=»!03—Jurisdiction held conferred by transfer, though order not noted in minutes of court.
    Where a complaint was filed in the county court and thereafter the cause transferred to the county court at. law, and a notation of the transfer made upon the docket by the judge of the county court, held, that the county, court at law had acquired jurisdiction, notwithstanding the order of transfer was not entered in the minutes of the county court.
    3. Criminal law <®=>913(1)—Plea to jurisdiction first made as grounds for new trial too late.
    A plea to the jurisdiction comes too late, when first made after trial as a ground for new trial.
    Appeal from El Paso County Court, at Law; J. M. Deaver, Judge.
    Charles Koehan and Leo Manning were convicted of a misdemeanor theft, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    A. T. Folsom and R. B. Daniel, both of El Paso, for appellants.
    R. 6. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellants were convicted in the county court at law of El Paso county of misdemeanor theft, and their punishment fixed at 12 months in the county jail.

There is no statement of facts in the record, and none of the matters complained •of in appellant’s motion for new trial relating to errors in the admission or rejection of testimony can be considered. Neither is there a bill of exceptions in the record.

It appears that the complaint herein was first filed in the county court of El Paso county and was subsequently transferred to the county court at law, and that, at the time of such transfer, a notation of this fact was made upon the docket by the judge of said county court. The case was called for trial and tried in the County court at law the next day. As far as we are informed by this record, no objection was made by appellants to being so tried, but complaint is made in the motion for new trial of the fact that the county court at law had no jurisdiction of this case because the order of transfer had not been entered in the minutes of the county court prior to the time of trial.

We deem the complaint of no merit. The docket and minute entries of orders and judgments but reflect the real judgments of the courts. It is unquestioned that the county judge did direct the transfer of this case to the county court at law, prior to the docketing of said case in the latter court, and also that he had made a notation on his docket of the fact that he had so directed said transfer. This was suflicient.

A plea to the jurisdiction comes too late when made after trial, and appellants, after submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the county court at law and taking chances upon their acquittal or conviction therein, cannot by complaint, first appearing in their motion for new trial, object to the jurisdiction of-said court. The county court at law of El Paso county was a court of competent jurisdiction to try misdemeanor thefts committed in said county. Appellants having submitted themselves voluntarily to such jurisdiction, and having invoked all the rights and remedies incident to a trial in said court, could not thereafter present a plea to the jurisdiction based upon a failure to extend a docket entry into the minutes such as above appears.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed. 
      <§=3For other cases see same topic and KBY-NTJMB'Ji’R in all Key-Numbered Digests and indexes