Case Name: Ex Parte R. F. Parker
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-10-18
Citations: 80 Tex. Crim. 114
Docket Number: No. 4267
Parties: Ex Parte R. F. Parker.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
Ex Parte R. F. Parker.
No. 4267.
Decided October 18, 1916.
Murder—Bail—Practice on Appeal—Statement of Facts.
In the absence of a statement of facts, an appeal to this court from an order of the lower court denying relator hail, can not be considered; however, if the alleged statement of facts were consider ed, there was no reversible error. It is the rule of this court, in this character of case, not to state or discuss the testimony.
Appeal from the District Court of Van Zandt. Tried below before the Hon. B. M. Smith.
Appeal from a habeas corpus proceeding denying bail, the defendant being charged with murder.
The opinion states the case.
Wynne, Wynne & Gilmore, for appellant.
Cited Ex parte Evers, 29 Texas Crim. App., 539; Ex parte Smith, 23 id., 100; Ex parte Jones 31 Texas Crim. Rep., 422.
C. C. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Cited Branch, Criminal Law secs. 93 to 99.

Opinion:
PREHDERGAST, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was held in custody by the sheriff under a proper warrant charging him with murder. An examining trial was held by the justice of the peace a few days after appellant killed deceased, and the justice after hearing all the testimony, remanded him without bail. Thereupon, he sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the district judge of the district, who also heard all the testimony, and he denied him bail and remanded him. From this action of the district judge this appeal is prosecuted.
There is really no statement of facts in the record. What is here has been agreed to by the attorneys on both sides, but has in no way been approved by the trial judge. Strictly, therefore, it can not be considered. .(Sec. 596, p. 304, 1 Branch's Ann. P. C.) However, before we discovered this, we had carefully read this statement, and even after discovering it we have again read and studied it. We have reached the conclusion that even if the statement had been approved by the trial judge we would not be justified in reversing the judgment of the District Court denying him bail. As is our rule, we do not state or discuss the testimony of appeals in this character of case.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.