Case Name: J. E. Bracher v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-11-19
Citations: 72 Tex. Crim. 198
Docket Number: No. 2767
Parties: J. E. Bracher v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 198–201

Head Matter:
J. E. Bracher v. The State.
No. 2767.
Decided November 19, 1913.
Rehearing denied December 10, 1913.
1.—Robbery—Statement of Facts—Transcript—Filing.
The time for filing transcripts in the Appellate Court expires in ninety days from the adjournment of the term of court, or if the term extends more than eight weeks, within ninety days from the date of sentence, and where the statement of facts was not filed until some five months after the sentence was pronounced, the same could not he considered on appeal.
2.—Same—Amended motion for New Trial—Rule Stated.
If, after the motion for new trial has been overruled by the trial court, and appellant desired to file an amended motion for new trial, he should file a motion asking the trial court to set aside the order overruling the motion for new trial and grant him a new trial, and the record should show this on appeal.
3.—Same—Practice on Appeal.
In the absence of a statement of facts, the matters presented for review can not be considered.
4. —Same—Attorney and Client—Negligence.
Where appellant employs his own attorney, negligence of his attorney in securing a statement of facts will be attributed to appellant; however, if the purported statement of facts were considered by this, court, there was no error.
5. —Same—Newly Discovered Evidence.
Where the motion for new trial on account of newly discovered evidence is not supported by affidavit and no reason is shown why such affidavit was not attached, the same can not be considered »on appeal. Following Love v. State, 3 Texas Crim. App., 501, and other cases.
6. —Same—Variance.
Upon trial of robbery, where the evidence showed that prosecutor was robbed of more than $10, as alleged in the indictment, this would not constitute a variance.
7. —Same—Indictment—Description of Money.
An indictment for robbery need not allege the denomination and kind of money of which prosecutor was robbed.
8. —Same—Jury and Jury Law—Talesman—Bill of Exceptions.
In the absence of bills of exception to the formation and organization of the jury on the ground that the jury was made up by talesmen, the matter can not be considered on appeal.
Appeal from the District Court of Wichita. Tried below- before the Hon. P. A. Martin.
Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
T. F. Hunter, for appellant.
On question of filing statement of facts: Johnson v. State, 159 S. W. Rep., 848.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of robbery, and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the State penitentiary.
There are no bills of exceptions contained in the record. There is a purported statement of facts, but the judge trying the cause certifies that same was not presented to him until August 30, 1913. This case was tried January 25, 1913, and sentence pronounced on February 24, 1913. The official stenographer's Act provides that time may be extended in which to file statements of facts and bills of exceptions, and, further, provides that a statement of facts in a felony case may be filed, whether time is granted by the trial judge or not, at any time before the time of filing of the transcript in the appellate court expires. We have frequently had occasion to call attention to the fact that the time for filing transcripts in the appellate court expires in ninety days from the adjournment of the term of court, or if the term extends more than eight weeks, within ninety days from date of sentence. See. 7 of chap. 119, Acts of Thirty-second Legislature; arts. 929, 930, 931, and 934 of Code of Criminal Procedure; Rule 2 of the Supreme Court, 142 S. W. Rep., and Rule 1, page xvii; Constitution, sec. 25 of art. 5.
There is another matter disclosed by this record we would call attention to. The motion for a- new trial was filed on January 27th and overruled on February 22, 1913. After said motion for new trial was overruled, appellant, without leave of the court, undertakes to file, two days after the motion for new trial had been overruled, an amended motion for a new trial, which the record does not disclose was ever called to the attention of this court. Under such circumstances this court would not be authorized to consider the amended motion for new trial. If, after the motion for new trial has been overruled by the trial court, an appellant desires to file an amended motion for new trial, he should file a motion asking the trial court to set aside the order overruling the motion for new trial and grant him a new trial, and the record should disclose by an order duly entered that such action was taken, and that the trial court then ruled on the amended motion.
There being no statement of facts we can consider, no matter is presented we can review.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.