Case Name: Dorothy Mae BAILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1961-01-25
Citations: 342 S.W.2d 338
Docket Number: No. 32830
Parties: Dorothy Mae BAILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 342
Pages: 338–338

Head Matter:
Dorothy Mae BAILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 32830.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 25, 1961.
No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., Fred M. Hooey, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
McDonald, judge.
The appellant was indicted for assault with intent to murder with malice aforethought, but the jury found her guilty of aggravated assault and assessed her punishment at sixteen months in jail.
It appears from the agreement of the attorneys for both the state and the appellant and from the certificate of the court reporter, containing no certificate of approval by the trial judge, that the statement of facts is only a partial statement of the facts and that it does not contain all the evidence adduced at the trial.
Hence, the sufficiency of the evidence can not be appraised. Mitcham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 332 S.W.2d 714.
As stated by the court in Hankins v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 553, 294 S.W.2d 850, in the absence of a statement of facts which can be considered, we are not in position to pass upon questions pertaining to the court's charge, the admissibility of evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence.
No formal bills of exception were presented in the instant case.
No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.