Case Name: Jim Craver, Jr. v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-06-14
Citations: 92 Tex. Crim. 430
Docket Number: No. 7020
Parties: Jim Craver, Jr. v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 430–432

Head Matter:
Jim Craver, Jr. v. The State.
No. 7020.
Decided June 14, 1922.
Rehearing Denied October 18, 1922.
1. —Burglary—Bills of Bxcepion — Practice on Appeal — Extension of Time.
Where the bills of exception are filed too late, even after an extension of time, the same must be stricken from the record.
2. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where upon trial of burglary, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, there was no reversible error.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Practice on Appeal.
Where upon motion for rehearing, the appellant again urged the insufficiency of the evidence, because the same was wholly circumstantial, the court, after a second careful consideration of the testimony, finds that the judgment should be affirmed and the motion for rehearing overruled.
Appeal from the District Court of Hill. Tried below before the Honorable Horton B. Porter.
Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Smith & Clarke, for appellant.
— Cited: Warren v. State, 106 S. W. Rep., 132. Hightower v. State, 237 id., 1112.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
— Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Hill County of the offense of burglary, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
We are met at the threshold of the consideration of this case by motion of the State to strike from the record appellant's bills of exceptions because filed too late. The trial term of the court below ended February 18,-1922. In the order overruling appellant's motion for new trial he was granted thirty days after adjournment in which to file bills of exception. On March 16 appellant asked for an extension of said time and the court then entered an order granting twenty days time in addition to that already given. Fifty days from February 18 would expire April 9. Appellant's bills of exception were filed April 17. This was too late. The State's motion to strike out must be sustained.
There remains only the question of the sufficiency of the evidence. The testimony for the State showed that on the night in question a barn under the control of the prosecuting witness was burglariously entered and a quantity of pecans and some sacks were taken therefrom. It rained that night. On the next day the prosecuting witness and two other men found the tracks of four persons leading to and also from said bam.' The tracks were followed to the house of Jim Graver, Sr., the father of appellant. On track was followed from the house of Jim Graver, Sr., across the field to the home of appellant. These tracks were measured. The shoe worn by appellant on said night was measured and corresponded, according to the testimony of said witness, with one of the tracks traced from the burglarized barn. Two sacks of pecans were found hidden under a haystack at the home of appellant's father, which were identified by prosecuting witness as his pecans and being in his sacks. Some pecans were found at the home of appellant which were also claimed by the prosecuting witness as his. The case was one of circumstantial evidence. The jury heard the testimony supporting the claims of the defense and also of the State and resolved the contradictions in such testimony in favor of the State.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.