Case Name: VICKERS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-12-21
Citations: 236 S.W. 483
Docket Number: No. 6530
Parties: VICKERS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 236
Pages: 483–484

Head Matter:
VICKERS v. STATE.
(No. 6530.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 21, 1921.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1922.)
1.Criminal law <&wkey;1038(l), 1056(1) — Errors in charge not reviewed without objections and exceptions.
A bill of exceptions complaining of errors in the court’s charge cannot be considered, where no objection to the charge filed, nor exception taken before it was read to the jury, is shown.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;359 — Exclusion of evidence of other offenses since accused’s arrest not error.
Evidence that since the arrest of accused other burglaries had been committed in the same town where the one appellant was charged with was committed, not shown to be relevant, was properly excluded.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;l099(8) — Excuse for not filing statement of facts received six days before expiration of time held not shown.
Even if the stenographer unduly delayed the preparation of the statement of facts, the failure to file the statement in time is not thereby excused, where counsel for accused received the statement six days before the expiration of the time for filing it, and made no showing that he could' not, within that time, have filed it by the exercise of reasonable diligence.
4. Criminal law i&wkey;l099(7) — Court is without power to relieve against consequences of laches.
Though the Court of Criminal Appeals has authority to relieve accused from the consequences of misfortune which prevent his filing his papers in time, the law demands diligence of him, and gives the court no authority to relieve him from the consequences of his own laches.
Appeal from District Court, Coleman County; J. O. Woodward, Judge.
R. J. Vickers was convicted of burglary, and be appeals.
Affirmed.
T. H. Strong, of Coleman, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
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 Tex. Or. R. 248, 153 S. W. 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.
<@^oFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes