Case Name: George Hustead v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-25
Citations: 95 Tex. Crim. 49
Docket Number: No. 6590
Parties: George Hustead v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 49–53

Head Matter:
George Hustead v. The State.
No. 6590.
Decided October 25, 1923.
Rehearing denied June 23, 1923.
1. —Theft—-Practice in Trial Court — Plea of Guilty — Practice on Appeal.
Where appellant sought a new trial on the ground that his attorney coerced him into entering the plea of guilty, this necessarily raised an issue of fact, and, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, cannot be reviewed 'on appeal.
2. —Same—Motion for New Trial — Practice on Appeal.
What purports to he the evidence taken upon a hearing of the motion for new trial cannot be considered on appeal because the same was not filed in the trial court during term time.
3. —Same—Attorney and Client — Affidavit.
The affidavits attached to the motion for new trial having been taken before appellant’s attorney, the same cannot be considered upon appeal.
4. —Same—Conspiracy to Commit Theft — Offense Defined.
Where the contention was made, upon motion for rehearing in this court, that a new trial had been awarded to two of the co-conspirators who were convicted at the same time as defendant, that a new trial should also have been granted him, and that it was fundamental error not to have done so, held, that more than three persons having been indicted with the defendant it must be presumed in the absence of the facts, that the judgment of conviction against defendant'is valid.
Appeal from the District Court of Wichita. Tried below before the Honorable P. A. Martin.
Appeal from a conviction of a conspiracy to commit theft; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
— Conviction is for conspiracy to commit the crime of theft, with punishment at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
Appellant went to trial on a plea of "not guilty." • After the State's evidence was introduced the plea of "not guilty" was withdrawn and a plea of guilty entered. No bills of exception were reserved to any part of the proceedings, and no statement of facts adduced upon the trial accompanies the record. Appellant sought a new trial on the ground that his attorney coerced him into entering the plea of guilty. This necessarily raised an issue of fact for the consideration of the trial court. No bill of exception having been reserved to his action in overruling the motion for new trial, we are not in a position to review the question. What purports to be the evidence taken upon a hearing of the motion accompanies the record, but cannot be considered. The trial term adjourned July 4th, 1921. The statement of facts in question was not filed in the court below until September 2, 1921. To be considered such a statement of facts must be filed within the term. Sec. 598, Branch's Ann. Pen. Code, Jurado v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 490; Nothaf v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 619, and cases cited in both opinions. We also observe that many affidavits attached to the motion were taken before appellant's attorney. This has been repeatedly held to be objectionable. The judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.