Case Name: Tom Fuller v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-06-04
Citations: 98 Tex. Crim. 132
Docket Number: No. 7882
Parties: Tom Fuller v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 132–135

Head Matter:
Tom Fuller v. The State.
No. 7882.
Decided June 4, 1924.
Rehearing denied June 27, 1924.
1. - — Robbery—Affidavit—Pauper’s Oath — Statement of Facts.
Where the affidavit appearing in the record setting out the inability of appellant to pay for the statement of facts, etc., was filed some fifty days after adjournment of the trial term, and it was not shown in any manner.to hav’e ever been brought to the attention of the trial court, there is no reversible error.
2. —Same—Rehearing—Statement of Facts — Practice on Appeal.
The authorities are uniform that in order to entitle the appellant to an order directing the stenographer to make out a statement of facts on a pauper’s affidavit, it must affirmatively appear from the record that the fact of making such affidavit was brought to the court’s attention, and that thereafter either the court or the stenographer was at fault in the matter, and there being no such showing, there is no reversible error.
3. —Same—Affidavit—Rule Stated — Pauper’s Affidavit — Attorney and Client.
In either case, where affidavit is filed of inability to pay the costs, or when an attorney was appointed to represent the defendant in a criminal action, there should be .a showing setting out the facts and evidencing a request to the trial judge that he make an order directing the preparation and delivery of a statement of facts; otherwise, the matter cannot be considered on appeal; besides, it is noted that appellant was able to make a reconnaizance in the sum of $2500, and that he should be able to give security for a few dollars to pay for a transcript upon appeal, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Appeal from the District Court of Brath. Tried below before the Honorable J. B. Keith.
Appeal from a conviction, of robbery; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the ease.
Pat L. Pittman; for appellant.
Tom Garrard, Attorney for the State and Grover C. Morris, Assistant Attorney for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
— Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Brath County of robbery, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.
The record is before us with a statement of facts. There are ten bills of exception in the transcript, only one of which bears the approval of the trial judge. The one so approved presents no error. There appears in the record an affidavit filed some fifty days after the adjournment of the trial term setting up the inability of appellant to pay for a statement of facts and requesting that the court order one prepared for him, but this is not shown in any manner to have ever been brought to the attention of the trial court as is required by statute.
The record reflecting no error, we have no option but to direct an affirmance of the judgment, which is done.
Affirmed.