Case ID: sw_134/html/0694-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OLIVUS v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 8, 1911.)
    Ceiminal Law (§ 1110) — Certiorari— Supplying Statement or Facts.
    Certiorari does not lie to bring a statement of facts into the record, where it does not appear that appellant exhausted his statutory remedies to obtain the statement; a mere showing that an affidavit was filed showing his inability to pay for the statement, and requesting that the stenographer be ordered to prepare one, being insufficient.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2912; Dec. Dig. § 1110.]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Ed ¡Sewell, Special Judge.
    Paul Olivus was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. M. Overstreet, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to rape; his punishment being assessed at 25 years’ confinement in the penitentiary. An appeal is prosecuted; the transcript before us being without a statement of facts or bills of ex-eeptions.

Appellant applies for a writ of certiorari, which is supported by the affidavit of his attorney, Mr. Overstreet This affidavit was sworn to on the 4th of November, 1910. The court adjourned on the 1st day of October, 1910. The court was in session from the 4th of July; 1910, to the 1st day of October, 1910, as shown by the caption in the transcript. There was no order entered, so far as the record before us shows, authorizing the filing of a statement of facts in the court below; nor is there any reason shown why the statement of facts was not filed within the 30 days after the sentence was pronounced, which occurred on August 18, 1910. Under the statute, where the court is in session more than 8 weeks, the statement of facts must be' filed within 30 days after the final judgment or sentence. If this has not been done, then the record must contain an order extending the time. The record shows that nothing of this character was done or sought to be done. The affidavit of Mr. Overstreet shows that he filed with the clerk of the court an affidavit of appellant’s inability to pay for the statement of facts, and requesting, under the statute, that the court order the official stenographer to prepare such statement of facts, and that he at the time urged the stenographer to prepare such record, and that the time has passed when such statement can be legally filed, and that, by reason of the refusal of said stenographer to prepare á statement of facts, his appeal has not been duly and legally perfected.

It will be noticed that this affidavit is very general, and does not show at what time this request was made, or the affidavit filed. It tails to show that he called upon the district judge, or presented the matter to the trial court, with a view of obtaining the statement of facts. If these matters had been presented to the district judge, it should be shown to this court that it was through no fault of appellant, and that he exhausted his remedies in trying to obtain the statement of facts. A mere recitation of the fact that he filed such affidavit with the clerk, as we understand the law, is not sufficient diligence. Even if filed within time, this matter should be called to the attention of the trial court, and the proper order entered requiring said statement of facts to be written out by the stenographer, to form a part of the record of the case.

There is an affidavit on this matter, signed by the deputy clerk, in which he states that there had never been filed with him any affidavit by Paul Olivus declaring his inability to pay the cost of a statement of facts, and that the records of the criminal district court of Dallas county fail to show any such affidavit. He further states that the defendant at no time made a motion requesting the judge to order the stenographer to prepare a statement of facts, and that the record fails to show that the judge ever made such order. He further states that he had heard appellant’s counsel state that he was not going to appeal the case, as it was of no use, defendant having escaped, and he also states that said attorney, in the conversation, mentioned that he did not want any record made up in the ease. In the attitude that the record presents itself to this court, we are of opinion that the certiorari should not be awarded. There has been no such diligence shown by the affidavit as is required by the statute.

It is the settled law of Texas, under these statutes extending time in which to prepare statement of facts and bills of exceptions, that a failure to secure either or both should arise from no negligence or want of diligence on the part of the party seeking same. This construction of the statute has been uniformly held since George v. State, 25 Tex. App. 229, 8 S. W. 25. The present statutes require that, where the court continues for 8 weeks or more, the statement of facts must be prepared within 30 days of the sentence or final judgment, with authority on the part of the court upon proper showing to grant further time. Where the court does not last 8 weeks, then the law itself allows 30 days after adjournment in which to prepare said statement of facts; and, if further time is necessary, it shall be granted upon proper showing to the judge who tried the case, to be entered of record. Without a compliance with these statutes, diligence would be wanting on the part of parties who do not obtain statement of facts. The motion for certio-rari was contested by the state, supported by the affidavit of the deputy clerk of the court as heretofore stated.

In the absence of statement of facts and bills of exceptions, there is no question presented that would require a revision by this court.

There being no error of record, the judgment is affirmed.