Case Name: Lee SIMPSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-01-07
Citations: 267 S.W. 1116
Docket Number: No. 8877
Parties: Lee SIMPSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 267
Pages: 1116–1117

Head Matter:
Lee SIMPSON v. STATE.
(No. 8877.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 7, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Eeb. 4, 1925.)
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tarrant County; Geo. E. Hosey, Judge.
C. T. Prewett, R. H. Smith, John W. Mays, and Thomas C. Tripp, all of Eort Worth, for appellant. Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for burglary, with punishment assessed at confinement in .the penitentiary for five years. It is unnecessary to set out the facts. They support the judgment. No objections were filed to the court's charge, and the record contains no bills of exception. Three special charges were requested by appellant, all of which were refused. They are simply marked "Refused," over the signature of the trial judge. There is no notation on any of the charges that exception was reserved to the action of the court. We have frequently held that the refused charge itself must bear notation over the judge's signature showing that its refusal was excepted to, or that a bill of exception conveying such information should be found in the record; otherwise, the refusal of the special charge would not be reviewed. The question was considered and discussed at length in Linder v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 316, 256 S. W. 703. No error appearing in the record, the judgment is ordered affirmed.