Case Name: JOHNSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1930-05-07
Citations: 31 S.W.2d 1084
Docket Number: No. 13324
Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE.
Judges: HAWKINS, J., absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 31
Pages: 1084–1087

Head Matter:
JOHNSON v. STATE.
No. 13324.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 7, 1930.
Appeal Reinstated June 18, 1930.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 29, 1930.
Benson & Benson, of Bowie, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Canton, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Conviction for driving an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated; punishment, a fine of $5.
The transcript in this case fails to show that either the judgment, the sentence, the order overruling the motion for new trial, or the notice of appeal, were ever entered of record or carried into the minutes. In this condition of the record, the Court of Criminal Appeals is without jurisdiction. Sauzeda v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 461, 216 S. W. 1098, and authorities cited; Hill v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 336, 300 S. W. 70.
The appeal is dismissed.
On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.
Because of defects in the record, at a former day this appeal was dismissed. By a supplemental transcript said defects have been remedied, and the ease will now be considered on its merits.
Appellant's motion for new trial herein was overruled October 12,1929, at which time by an order duly entered the court allowed appellant -seventy days in which to file bills of exception. Computation shows this time allowed ended December 21st of said year. All the hills of exception herein were filed on December 31, 1929. Thi-s was manifestly too late.
Considering the sufficience of the testimony, we are impelled to believe it ample. A number -of witnesses testified for the state that at the time appellant drove and operated his car upon the road in question, he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. They detailed many actions and much conduct of appellant supporting their said opinions. Appellant introduced some testimony to the contrary. The jury have settled such conflict in favor of the state. 'The testimony amply shows the road upon which said car was operated to have been recognized as public by the commissioners' court, and that same had been used by the public and worked by road hands and at public expense for a great many years. Authorities are not needed upon the proposition that it was a public road.
The evidence being sufficient, and no error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.