Case ID: sw_287/html/0246-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY,\" J. LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CRUMP v. STATE.
    (No. 10270.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 23, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1926.)
    1. Crimina! law <©=>1092(7), 1099(6).
    Statement of facts and bills of exceptions, filed more than 90 days after notice of appeal is given, cannot be considered, in view of Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760, § 5.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law <§=w!099(7).
    That defendant and his attorney were unaware of change in time allowed for filing statement of facts made by 1925 Code of Criminal Procedure, is not ground for considering statement of facts filed too late.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Titus County; R. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
    Irvin Crump was convicted of unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      I.N. "Williams, of Mt. Pleasant, for appellant ■
    Sam D. Stinson State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Ryles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for tbe State. y
    
   BERRY," J.

The offense is the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor, and the punishment is one year in the penitentiary.

The notice of appeal was given on the 22d day of January, 1926, and the bills of exceptions and statement of facts were not filed until April 30, 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 O. O. 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.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is based entirely upon the proposition that, because neither he nor his attorney was aware of the change in time within which statements of fact must be filed by the 1925 Revised Code of Criminal Procedure, we should not have declined to consider the statement of facts in this case. The 1925 Code of Criminal Procedure became the law of this state on the 1st of September, 1925. "We are not at liberty to go contrary to the positive commands of the statute, because the revision was not in the hands of appellant’s attorney. However much we might regret the situation, our duty in the premises is plain. The statement of facts is filed too late, and the motion for rehearing will be overruled.