Case Name: ERWIN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-06-27
Citations: 219 S.W. 827
Docket Number: No. 5134
Parties: ERWIN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 219
Pages: 827–828

Head Matter:
ERWIN v. STATE.
(No. 5134.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 27, 1919.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 28, 1920.
On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, March 3, 1920.
Rehearing Denied March 31, 1920.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;1097(5) — Instructions CANNOT BE REVIEWED WITHOUT STATEMENT OP PACTS.
Error assigned to the refusal of special charges requested by accused cannot be considered, in the absence of the statement of facts.
2. Bail &wkey;>57 — Recognizance not stating PUNISHMENT IS INSUPPICIENT.
Under Yernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proe. 1916, art. 923, a recognizance which fails to state the amount of punishment assessed by the jury is insufficient to give jurisdiction on appeal.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <5=1099(5) — Statement dp PACTS PILED ’ EIGHTEEN MONTHS AFTER TERM ADJOURNMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED.
A statement of facts, which was not filed until one year and a half after the adjournment of the court term, cannot be considered.
On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;1099(5) — Uncontrovert-ED AFFIDAVIT THAT STATEMENT WAS PRESENTED IN TIME AUTHORIZES ITS CONSIDERATION.
Where the affidavits of accused that the statement of facts was presented to the trial judge within the time fixed by law for the approval and filing thereof were not controverted, the statement can be considered on appeal, though not filed until 18 months after adjournment of the term.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;S29(l) — Requests covered BY CHARGE NEED NOT BE GIVEN.
The refusal of special requested charges which were governed by the main charge does not require reversal of the conviction.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Robt. B. Seay, Judge.
E. J. Erwin was convicted of an aggravated assault and be appeals.
Affirmed.
O. P. Greenwood, of Dallas, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $100.
The record is before us without a statement of facts. There were three special charges presented by appellant, but refused by the court. In the absence of the statement of facts we are unable to review these questions, or to reach any definite conclusion as to any supposed error in their refusal.
\vte have said this much with reference to the record in its present condition, hut in addition to this the recognizance is not in compliance with the law, in that it fails to state the amount of punishment assessed by the jury. See article 923, Vernon's Ann. G. O. P., and the authorities thereunder collated on pages 887 and 888. Under this statute it is necessary, in order to have recognizance attach the jurisdiction of this court, that it must stipulate in the face of the recognizance the amount of punishment assessed by the jury. This recognizance does not do this. It recites that appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of aggravated assault, and was convicted of said offense, and then follows the requirements that he shall appear before the trial court from day to day and term to term in order to abide judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Had the recognizance been sufficient, an affirmance would necessarily have followed in view of the condition in which the record is presented.
The appeal is dismissed.
<SE5>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes