Case Name: Albert Woolridge v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-03-08
Citations: 91 Tex. Crim. 430
Docket Number: No. 6733
Parties: Albert Woolridge v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 430–432

Head Matter:
Albert Woolridge v. The State.
No. 6733.
Decided March 8, 1922.
Rehearing Denied April 6, 1922.
1. -Murder—Death Penalty—Statement of Facts—Practice on Appeal.
In the absence of a statement of facts, this court cannot reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial, and must presume that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
2. —Same—Rehearing—Statutes Construed—Statement of Facts—Practice on Appeal.
The statute naming the time in which a statement of facts shall be filed in order to entitle it to consideration in this court is binding alike upon the litigant and the court, and where not filed in accord with the terms of the statute, this court is not privileged to consider it unless there are given sufficient reasons for the delay. However, this court not treating the statement of facts as an official one, finds that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, under a proper charge of the court.
Appeal from the District Court of Colorado. Tried below before the Honorable M. Kennon.
Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, death.
The opinion states the case.
H.A. Townsend, for appellant.
B. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
—Appellant was convicted of the murder of Emma Woolridge. His punishment was fixed at death.
Notwithstanding appellant has been condemned to suffer the severest penalty known to the law, the record is presented to us entirely barren of a statement of facts or a single bill of exception. It appears from the motion for new trial that Emma Woolridge was appellant's wife. The motion attacks the sufficiency of the evidence. We have no way to appraise the merit of the criticism in the absence of the evidence taken on the trial. We must presume it was suf fieient to authorize the verdict. The indictment properly charges the offense of murder; the charge of the court is pertinent, and the judgment regular.
It becomes our duty therefore to affirm the judgment.
Affirmed. "