Case Name: IVORY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-17
Citations: 274 S.W. 565
Docket Number: No. 9305
Parties: IVORY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 274
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
IVORY v. STATE.
(No. 9305.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 17, 1925.)
Criminal law @=31090(16) — Where grounds of motion for new trial are not preserved by separate bills of exceptions, record presents nothing for review.
Record presents nothing for review, where only bill of exceptions in record is one complaining of refusal of motion for new trial, grounds of which were not preserved by separate bills of exceptions at time error occurred.
Commissioners’ Decision.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Travis County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
Julia Ivory was convicted of theft from the person, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
Dickens & Dickens, of Austin, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., • and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, J.
The appellant was convicted in the district court of Travis county of the offense of theft from the person, and her punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.
There are no objections found in the record to charge of the court, and no bills of exceptions preserved to the introduction of any testimony.
Appellant filed an application for a continuance, but there is no bill of exceptions found in tlie record to the court's action in overruling the same. In fact, the only bill of exceptions contained in the record is one complaining at the court's action in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial.
The motion for a new trial contains 12 different alleged grounds of error, no one of which was preserved by a separate bill of exceptions at the time the alleged error occurred. Under these conditions, we hold that there is nothing in the record which we can consider.
The facts being sufficient to support the verdict, and there being no error of record, it is our opinion that the judgment should be in all things affirmed.
PER OURIAM.
The foregoing opinion ol' the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court .
@3wPor other cases see same topic and KE i-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes