Case ID: sw_255/html/0423-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RETZA v. STATE.
    (No. 7708.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 24, 1923.)
    Criminal law &wkey;sl099(6) — Statements of fact held tardily filed and not' entitled to consideration.
    Where, after a conviction, defendant was given 90 days from the adjournment of the trial term within which to file a statement of facts and bills of exception, the judge had no authority near the expiration of such 90 days to grant an additional thirty days, and a statement of facts filed 22 days after the expiration of the 90 days could not be considered on appeal.
    ’<S=3For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from District Court, Galveston County; Robt. G. Street, Judge.
    Fred Retza was convicted of stealing an automobile, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    L. O. Brady and L. M. Kenyon, both of Galveston, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for theft of an automobile. Punishment, four years in the penitentiary. *

The record contains no bills of exception,, and the instrument accompanying it purporting to be a statement of facts cannot be considered.

The trial term of court adjourned on November 28th. Ninety days from adjournment was given to file statement of fácts and bills of exception. The 90 days expired February 26th. On February 21st the learned trial judge made an order by which he undertook to grant 30 days additional time for the filing. The statement of facts was not filed in the trial court until March 20th, which was 22 days after the expiration of the. 90 days prescribed by law. The judge had no authority to extend the time beyond the 00 days. Roberts v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 7, 136 S. W. 483; Benson v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 126, 210 S. W. 538; Gowan v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 222, 164 S. W. 6; Johnson v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 224, 246 S. W. 390. For other authorities, see collation under article 845, Vernon’s C. C. P. No excuse appears in the record accounting for the delay in preparing for appeal.

We regret that the purported statement of facts cannot be considered. Without it, and in the absence of bills of éxception, we must order an, affirmance of the judgment.