Case Name: PORTER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-03-14
Citations: 193 S.W. 147
Docket Number: No. 4391
Parties: PORTER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 193
Pages: 147–147

Head Matter:
PORTER v. STATE.
(No. 4391.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 14, 1917.)
Criminal Law <&wkey;1099(6) — Appeal and Error-Review — Statement op Facts — Piling.
On appeal from conviction of crime in county court, a statement of facts filed more than 20 days after adjournment of trial court presents nothing for review, notwithstanding that the trial court by order allowed 30 days after adjournment for filing such statement, and that such statement was filed within 30 days.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2877.]
Appeal from Ellis County Court; W. M. Tidwell, Judge.
Earnest Porter was convicted of adultery, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
Appellant was convicted of adultery, and assessed the lowest penalty, a fine of $100.
The term of court at which he was convicted convened September 4th and adjourned for the term December 2, 1916. Appellant was tried and convicted October 3d. His motion for new trial was overruled October 21st, at which time he "gave notice of appeal to this court and entered into a recognizance, and on that date the court entered an order allowing 30 days after adjournment to file a statement of facts. The court could not grant longer than 20 days. The statement of facts herein was not filed until December 30th, 28 days after adjournment.
This court has uniformly and in a great number of decisions held that longer than 20 days after adjournment cannot be given, and even though the court enters an order allowing 30 days, no statement of facts filed after 20 days can be considered. It is unnecessary to collate the great number of these decisions, but see De Friend v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 329, 153 S. W. 881, and cases cited therein ; Cranfill v. State, 189 S. W. 482; Hamilton v. State, 189 S. W. 482.
Nothing is presented which can be reviewed in the absence of a statement of facts.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
&wkey;5Por other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes