Case Name: DEAL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-03-11
Citations: 269 S.W. 433
Docket Number: No. 8929
Parties: DEAL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 269
Pages: 433–433

Head Matter:
DEAL v. STATE.
(No. 8929.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 11, 1925.)
I. Criminal law <&wkey;!099(l) — Statement of facts not considered where not approved by district judge.
Deposit of statement of facts agreed to by district attorney and appellant’s counsel with district clerk within time required, without approval of district judge, held not to justify consideration of such statement on appeal, or issuance of certiorari to perfect record, in absence of showing of diligence.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;l099(7) — Illness of judge in adjoining county held not to excuse lack of effort to procure approval of statement of facts.
That district judge was in adjoining county, ill, held not to justify appellant making no effort to procure his approval of statement of facts, and his filing of such statement with district clerk without such approval.
On application for leave to file second motion for rehearing.
Leave to file motion denied.
For former opinion, see 268 S. W. 746.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
We regret that we cannot grant the application for leave to file second motion for rehearing. The showing of diligence on the part of appellant with regard to the filing of statement of facts is not sufficient. The depositing of said statement of facts, after same had been agreed to by the district attorney and appellant's counsel, with the district .clerk within the time required, but without the approval of the district judge, would not justify us in giving said statement consideration, or in ordering the issuance of certiorari to perfect the record, unless there had been a showing of more diligence than here appears. The mere fact that the district judge was in an adjoining county, ill, would not justify appellant in making no effort apparently to procure his approval. However, in this connection we might observe that we have examined the statement of facts, and if same were before us it would not change our judgment of affirmance.
Leave to file second motion for'rehearing is denied.