Case Name: Alvie Le Marr v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1957-10-30
Citations: 165 Tex. Crim. 474
Docket Number: No. 29,204
Parties: Alvie Le Marr v. State
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 165
Pages: 474–477

Head Matter:
Alvie Le Marr v. State
No. 29,204.
October 30, 1957.
Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Overruled January 15, 1958.
Ross Hardin, Dallas, and Doss Hardin, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Criminal District Attorney, James K. Allen, William F. Alexander, A. D. Jim Bowie, Assistants District Attorney, Dallas, and Leon Douglas, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is murder; the punishment, 50 years.
The state has moved to strike the statement of facts on file in this court because the same was not filed in the trial court until the 104th day after notice of appeal and therefore filed too late for our consideration under Articles 759A, sec. 4, and 760d, V.A.C.C.P.
Appellant's attorney, in answer to such motion, has furnished this court with an affidavit in which he states that the statement of facts was completed by the court reporter on or about May 24, 1957. He does not tell this court how he knew that the statement of facts was completed on that day nor does he state that he saw the same in its completed condition.
The pauper's oath was filed on June 3, which was the 89th day. On June 4, the 90th day, the court ordered the reporter to prepare and furnish the statement of facts.
The court reporter has furnished this court with an affidavit in which she swears that the statement of facts was not completed on June 4 and could not have been completed on such date.
Since the appellant's attorney's affidavit does not inform this court how he knew the statement of facts was completed at an earlier date, we must accept the affidavit of the reporter that the same was not completed on June 4, which was the last day for filing the same.
We must hold that the appellant has not exercised due diligence when he waited until the 89th day to file his pauper's oath and that the statement of facts was filed too late.
The judgment appearing regular and nothing being presented for review, the judgment is affirmed.