Case Name: R. J. Vickers v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-12-21
Citations: 90 Tex. Crim. 609
Docket Number: No. 6530
Parties: R. J. Vickers v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 609–611

Head Matter:
R. J. Vickers v. The State.
No. 6530.
Decided December 21, 1921.
Rehearing denied January 25, 1922.
1. — Burglary—Statement of Facts — Filing—Practice on Appeal.
A statement of facts which was not filed in the trial court until after the expiration of 90 days from adjournment cannot be considered on appeal. •Following Maxwell v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 248, and other cases.
2. — Same—Bills of Exception — Rule—Practice on Appeal — Time of Filing.
Where the bills of exception were not filed in time, but even if considered present no error, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.
3. — Same—Rehearing—Statement of Facts — Practice on Appeal.
Where a statement of facts is not filed within the 90 days, it cannot be considered on appeal, and where the record shows that there was ample time to have authenticated the document and file the same, the same cannot be considered here, as it is not within the province of this court to arbitrarily extend the time within which the law permits the statement of facts to be filed. Following Riojas v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 182, and other cases.
4. — Same—Executive Clemency — Executive Clemency — Juvenile
The statement of counsel that the. accused is a youth whom the facts show to be innocent of the crime, while it elicits the sympathy of the court cannot avail here, and if said interpretation is correct, it might receive favorable attention for executive clemency.
Appeal from the District Court of Coleman. Tried below before the Honorable J. O. Woodward.
Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
T. H. Strong, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.-
On question of time of filing statement of facts: Hart v. State, 218 S. W. Rep., 1054.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
The statement of facts was not filed in the trial court until after the expiration of 90 days from adjournment. This was too late. Maxwell v. State, 69 Texas Crim. Rep., 248, 153 5. W. Rep., 324. Counsel for appellant has filed affidavits purporting to excuse him for failure to file in time. Counter affidavit from the court stenographer has been filed by the State. To pass upon the •question in the instant case it is not necessary to determine the controversy between them. The statement of facts was delivered to appellant's counsel not later than August 5th, in ample time to have had the same approved and filed within the 90 days. Two companion cases involving the same facts were tried about the same time as appellant, and counsel, after receiving the statement of facts from the stenographer, held it for the purpose of himself preparing statement of facts in the other two cases. It could have been secured from the clerk after filing for that purpose. We cannot conclude that appellant has been deprived of statement .of facts without fault chargeable to him.
The bills of exceptions were not filed in time either. But they present no errors if considered. One complains of the court's charge in some particulars, but the record shows no objections thereto filed or exceptions taken before the charge was read to the jury. The other complains because the court would not permit appellant to show that since appellant was arrested other burglaries had been committed in the same town where the one appellant is charged with was committed. The' relevancy of this testimony is not made apparent from the bill.. As the record must be considered by us, no errors are shown.
The judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.
Affirmed.