Case Name: KOLBACHINSKI v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-05-26
Citations: 284 S.W. 951
Docket Number: No. 10190
Parties: KOLBACHINSKI v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 284
Pages: 951–952

Head Matter:
KOLBACHINSKI v. STATE.
(No. 10190.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 26, 1926.
Rehearing Denied June 23, 1926.)
M. D. Bennett, of Normangee, Haynes Shannon, of Navasota, O. H. Crow, of, Grove-ton, and Wiley Poston, of Lufkin, for appel-1 ■ lant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Conviction in district court of Trinity county of manslaughter; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.
The state objects to the consideration of the statement of facts in this case because filed more than 90 days after the motion for new trial was overruled and notice of appeal was given. The motion for new trial was overruled October, 13, 1925. The statement of facts was filed January 14,' 1926. This was 93 days after the notice of appeal, and more than the time fixed by the Revised Statutes of 1925 (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 760). We are thus deprived of the right to consider the statement of facts.
The record contains but one bill of exceptions. Same was taken to the refusal of a special charge, the applicability of which would necessarily depend upon the testimony in the case. Being deprived of the right to look to the testimony, we are unable to determine whether the refusal of the special charge referred to was error.
The Indictment being regular, and the charge of the court appearing to be satisfactory to appellant and to present the law applicable to the offense, and nothing being before us to support any contention that appellant has not had a fair trial, the judgment will be affirmed.