Case Name: Arthur Lewis v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1895-02-13
Citations: 34 Tex. Crim. 126
Docket Number: No. 535
Parties: Arthur Lewis v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 126–129

Head Matter:
Arthur Lewis v. The State.
No. 535.
Decided February 13.
1. Statement of Facts Filed Rune pro Tunc After Appeal—Jurisdiction— Practice.—Where on appeal the statement of facts could not he considered, because filed without an order after adjournment of the term, and the judgment below was affirmed, Held, that subsequent to said affirmance the trial court had no jurisdiction and no authority to enter an order nunc pro tunc allowing ten days in which to file the statement of facts; and such statement of facts will not be considered on rehearing by this court.
2. Same—Effect of an Appeal—Construction of Statute.—The Code of Criminal Procedure, article 849, provides, that the effect of an appeal is to suspend and arrest all further proceedings in the trial court; but makes provision for the substitution in said court of records which have been lost or destroyed after notice of appeal. Held, that the entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the substitution of a lost or destroyed record, and is void, since the statute deprives the trial court of all jurisdiction, except for the purposes stated, when the appeal has once gone into effect.
Appeal from the County Court of Ellis. Tried below before Hon. D, F. Singleton, County Judge.
This appeal is from a conviction for “shooting craps,” where the punishment assessed was a fine of $10.
The court on appeal affirmed the judgment, and would not consider the statement of facts, because filed without an order of court to that effect, after adjournment of the term.
After this affirmance, the following proceedings were had in the County Court at a subsequent term:
“County Court, Criminal Minutes, January Term, 1895.
“In County Court, Ellis County, Texas, January Term, 1895.—Tues-day, January 29, 1895. •
“The State of Texas
“y.
“4033.
“Arthur Lewis.
“The motion of defendant to correct and supply an omission in the record coming on to be heard, and it appearing to the court, that at the October Term, 1894, leave was asked and granted for ten days after the adjournment of the court to file a statement of facts, as shown by an entry made on the judge’s docket in said cause during said term of the court; it is therefore ordered, that said order allowing ten days after the adjournment of court of said October Term, 1894, to file a statement of facts, be now entered on the minutes of said court as of date October 20, 1894, the date when it appears from the judge’s docket said order was in fact made.”
Appellant moved for a rehearing in the Court of Criminal Appeals, and that the said statement of facts be considered on the rehearing. This motion was overruled and the hearing refused. Appellant then filed a second motion for a reconsideration of the rulings upon the former motion, and for rehearing.
M. A. Templeton, for appellant,
on the motion for reconsideration and rehearing, cited Blum v. Neilson, 59 Texas, 378; Ball, Hutchings & Co. v. Collins, 66 Texas, 467; Hickey v. Behrens, 75 Texas, 495.
Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDS027, Judge.
Appellant was convicted for playing craps, a game played with dice. The statement of facts, having been filed after the adjournment of court for the term, can not be considered, because the record fails to show an order for that purpose. The sole ground urged for reversal is the want of sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges all present and concurring.