Case Name: Lino Pedroza v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-05-21
Citations: 97 Tex. Crim. 621
Docket Number: No. 8371
Parties: Lino Pedroza v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 621–624

Head Matter:
Lino Pedroza v. The State.
No. 8371.
Decided May 21, 1924.
Rehearing denied June 18, 1924.
1. —Rape—Pauper’s Oath — Security for Costs — Appeal.
Where, upon conviction of rape, defendant filed an affidavit in which he stated that he was unable to pay or give security for costs of the appeal of his case, but the record did not show that this affidavit was called to the attention of the trial court, and there was never an order made requiring the stenographer to make a transcript, etc., there is no reversible error, and the judgment must be affirmed.
2. —Same—Rehearing—Attorney and Client — Affidavit.
Granting the truth of the affidavit asserting the neglect of the attorney who first represented the appellant at the trial, it affirmatively appears from the record that another attorney was employed before the expiration of the time within which to file the statement of facts, and that even then the district judge was not requested to make an order upon the affidavit of the appellant, and in the absence of an order, there was no legal duty resting upon the court’s stenographer to make the statement of facts.
3. —Same—Practice on Appeal — Statement of Pacts.
In the judgment of this court the record does not warrant it in considering the statement of facts offered nor in reversing the case because of the failure to receive it; besides, if it were considered, no reversible error is presented, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson. Tried below before the Honorable Geo. C. O’Brien.
Appeal from a conviction of rape; penalty, fifteen years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
Tom Garrard, Attorney for the State, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The offense is rape; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of fifteen years.
The indictment is regular. No statement of facts accompanies the transcript, and no bills of exception are contained therein.
The term of court at which the trial took place expired on the 15th day of September, 1923. During that term there was filed the affidavit of appellant in which he stated that he was unable to pay or give security for the costs of the appeal of his case. So far as the record reveals, this affidavit was not called to the attention of the trial court, nor was there any order made. It is required in Article 8á5a, C. C. P., that when a case is appealed and the defendant is unable to pay for the transcript of the evidence or to give security for the costs, it shall, nevertheless be the duty of the stenographer to make the transcript of his notes showing the evidence as described in Article 844b, C. 0. P., and deliver it to the accused without costs to him. It is also required by the statute mentioned (Art. 845a) that as a predicate for imposing this duty, an affidavit shall be made by the accused stating his inability to pay or give security for the costs, and that "upon the making and filing of such affidavits, the court shall order the stenographer to make such transcript in duplicate, and deliver them as herein provided in civil cases, but the stenographer shall receive no pay for same." In the present matter, if the filing of the affidavit was known to the trial court, the order prescribed by the statiite should have been made. Inasmuch as the record fails to show that the order was made, this court must assume that the affidavit was not.called to the attention of the trial judge.
It is not improper to say that it is painful to find the record in the condition of the present one. The law contemplates that one convicted of a felony shall have the right of appeal and prescribes the procedure, making availing a transcription of the evidence to the indigent as well as the opulent individual convicted of crime. Ex parte Fread, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 465; Fennel v. State, 90 Texas Crim. Rep., 408, 235 S. W. Rep., 885; Ellis v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 529; 213 S. W. Rep., 264; Jackson v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 244; 242 S. W. Rep., 732; Sisson v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 601, 244 S. W. Rep., 1012.
The appellant seems to have made an attempt by filing an affidavit to secure the privilege of bringing the facts before this court for review. It is a subject of regret that there has been a failure to accord this right which the lawmakers intended he should have. This court, however, has no choice but to assume that the trial court did not know that the affidavit mentioned was filed, and finding no other matter presented for review, must order an affirmance of the judgment.
Affirmed.