Case ID: sw_186/html/0840-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JONES v. STATE.
    (No. 4092.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 31, 1916.)
    Criminal Law <&wkey;1092(7) — Bill of Exceptions — Time foe Filing.
    Where the term at which defendant was convicted continued more than 8 weeks, and, upon the overruling of her motion for a new trial, she gave proper notice of appeal and was duly sentenced, and no order was made allowing any time for filing bills of exceptions, bills of exception filed more than 30 days after the overruling of the motion for a new trial were too late, and would be stricken on motion.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2850, 2852-2854; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;1092(7).]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Robt. B. Seay, Judge.
    Mary Jones was convicted of murder, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of murder, and her punishment assessed at 7 years in the penitentiary.

The term of court at which she was convicted by law could, and as a matter of fact did, continue longer than 8 weeks. The court overruled her motion for a new trial on February 12, 1916, at which time she gave proper notice, which was duly entered, of appeal to this court, and at that time she was duly sentenced. No order was made allowing any time for filing bills of exception. The law gave appellant only 30 days from the overruling of the motion for new trial and sentence to file bills of exception. In order to enable her to file them later, she .must procure, and the court must enter, an order allowing such additional time. The Assistant Attorney General’s motion to strike out and not consider the bills of exceptions because filed too late must therefore be sustained.

She has three bills. We have examined them, notwithstanding they were filed too late; and, as qualified by the judge, even if we could consider them, they present no error.

The only other question is, she claims the testimony was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We have carefully studied the evidence and are of the opinion that her contention cannot be sustained. We think the evidence was sufficient. So the court and jury below both found. We would not be justified, therefore, in setting aside the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.