Case Name: PEDROZA v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-05-21
Citations: 263 S.W. 283
Docket Number: No. 8371
Parties: PEDROZA v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 263
Pages: 283–284

Head Matter:
PEDROZA v. STATE.
(No. 8371.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 21, 1924.
Rehearing Denied June 27, 1924.)
1. Criminal law <§=31144(19)— Affidavit of inability to pay costs presumed not called to attention of trial judge.
Under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, arts. 844b, 845a, as to making transcript for accused filing affidavit of inability to pay costs, where record shows affidavit filed, hut no Qrder made pursuant thereto, it will be presumed that the affidavit was not called to attention of trial judge.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law 1099(6) —Statement of facts held not to be considered.
Under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, arts. 844b, 845a, as to making transcript for accused filing affidavit of inability to pay costs, where record shows affidavit filed, but no order made pursuant thereto, and there was affidavit that attorney first representing accused was negligent, but it appeared that another attorney was employed before the expiration of the time within which to file statement of facts, but failed to request an order therefor by the judge, the statement of facts later brought before the Court of Criminal Appeals could not be considered.
3. Rape cg=o52(l) — Evidence held not to warrant reversal of conviction of rape.
Evidence held not to warrant a reversal of conviction of rape of 12 year old girl.
Appeal from District .Court, Jefferson County; Geo. C. O’Brien, Judge.
Lino Pedroza was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Alfred Du Perier, of Port Arthur, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.-

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is rape; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a, period of 15 years.
The indictment is regular. No statement of facts accompanies the transcript, and no bills of exception are contained therein.
The term of court at which the trial took place expired on the 15th day of September, 1923. During that term there was filed the affidavit of appellant in which he stated that 'he was unable to pay or give security for the costs of the appeal of his case. So far as the record reveals, this affidavit was not called to the attention of the trial .court, nor was there any order made. It is required in article 845a, C. C. P., that, when a case is appealed, and the defendant is unable to pay for the transcript of the evidence or to give security for the costs, it shall, nevertheless be the duty of the stenographer to make the transcript of his notes showing the evidence as described in article 844b, C. C. P., and deliver it to the accused without costs to him. It is also required by the statute mentioned (article 845a) that as a predicate for imposing this duty, an- affidavit shall be made by the accused, stating his inability to pay or give security for the costs, and that "upon the making and filing of such affidavit, the court shall order the stenographer to make such transcript in duplicate, and deliver them as herein provided in civil cases, but the stenographer shall receive no pay for same." In the present matter, if the filing of the affidavit was known to the trial court the order prescribed by the statute should have been made. Inasmuch as the record fails to show that the order was made, this court must assume that the affidavit was not called to the attention of the trial judge.
It is not improper to say that it is painful to find the record in the condition of the present one. The law contemplates that one convicted of a felony shall have the right of appeal, and prescribes the procedure, making available a transcription of the evidence to the indigent as well as'the opulent individual convicted of crime. Ex parte Fread, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 865, 204 S. W. 113; Fennell v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 408, 235 S. W. 885; Ellis v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 529, 213 S. W. 264; Jackson v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 242, 242 S. W. 732; Sisson v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. App. 601, 244 S. W. 1012.
The appellant seems to have made an attempt by filing an affidavit to secure the privilege' of bringing the facts before this court for review. It is a subject of regret that there has been a failure to accord this right which the lawmakers intended he should have. This court, however, has no choice but to assume that the trial court did not know that the affidavit mentioned was filed, and, finding no other matter presented for review, must order an affirmance of the judgment.
<§=»For other cases see same topic and KEV-NUMBEH. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes