Case Name: Juan Carusales v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1904-06-24
Citations: 47 Tex. Crim. 1
Docket Number: No. 2841
Parties: Juan Carusales v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 1–3

Head Matter:
AUSTIN TEEM, 1904.
Juan Carusales v. The State.
No. 2841.
Decided June 24, 1904.
1. —New Trial—Amended Motion for New Trial.
It- is within the sound discretion of the court to permit amended motions for new trial to be filed after the time of two days allowed by law has expired, and where an amended motion for new trial, filed after the two days had elapsed for the filing for new trial, was upon motion of the State struck out, there was no error.
ON REHEARING.
2. —Motion for Rehearing—Time of Riling.
Where a motion for rehearing was received by the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals seventeen days after the rendition of the opinion, it will not be considered, the rule and statutes requiring that such motion shall be filed within fifteen days after the rendition of the opinion.
Appeal from the District Court of Nueces. Tried below before Hon. Stanley Welsh.
Appeal from a conviction of burglary of private residence; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
No statement necessary.
Delmas Givens and D. McNeill Turner, for appellant.
Defendant having filed his original motion for a new trial within two days after judgment, it was his absolute right, and a right of which he could not be deprived in the “discretion” of the trial judge, to amend, enlarge or strengthen said motion, by amendment filed during the term, and that, too, without giving either reason or excuse for not having filed such amendment within the two days’ time limit; but having obtained leave to file such amendment and having presented under oath sufficient and satisfactory reasons why his amendment of his original motion was not filed sooner, it was the duty of the court to consider the same; and in refusing to do so, and in striking out said amendment, the court deprived defendant of a substantial right under the laws and rules of practice in this State, thereby committing reversible error, and this assignment is well taken. Ransom v. State, 6 Texas Crim. App., 259.
Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
BROOKS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of night-time burglary of a private residence and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of five years. We have carefully examined the charge of the court, and it is altogether applicable to the facts proved upon the trial of the case. The motion for new trial urges various errors, which we do not think are well taken. Appellant filed an amended motion for new trial after the two days had elapsed for the filing of motion for new trial. The court sustained the motion of the district attorney and struck out the amended motion. Under the showing here, there was no error in this. Under article 819, Code of Criminal Procedure, it is within the sound discretion of the court to permit amended motions for new trial to be filed after the two days allowed by law have expired. For collation of authorities on this subject, see sec. 1154, White's Ann. Code Crim. Proc. Furthermore, after a careful review of the amended motion there is no matter relied upon for new trial not urged in the original motion, except what appellant terms newly discovered evidence. We do not think it comes within the rule of newly discovered evidence, and were we to consider said amended motion it would not change the result. No error appearing in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.