Case Name: ROBERSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-03-26
Citations: 260 S.W. 578
Docket Number: No. 8204
Parties: ROBERSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 260
Pages: 578–578

Head Matter:
ROBERSON v. STATE.
(No. 8204.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 26, 1924.)
Criminal law <&wkey;l092(9) — Order entered within time bilis may be filed to extend) time beyond 90 days unauthorized.
An order entered within the time when bills of exceptions may be filed, attempting to extend the time for filing such bills beyond the 90-day period after adjournment of court, was without authority of law.
Appeal from District Court, Wharton County; M. S. Munson, Judge.
Cammie Roberson was convicted óf selling intoxicating liquor, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATThMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district couft of Wharton county of selling intoxicating liquor, and her punishment fixed at 1 year in the penitentiary.
The only two bills of exception in the record were filed too late. The trial term of the court below adjourned May SO, 1923, and an order was entered granting appellant 90 days after adjournment of court in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. Ninety days is the length of time also allowed within which records should be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. We think an order entered within a time when bills may be filed attempting to extend the time for filing such bills of exception beyond the 90-day period was without authority of law. Bowen v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 490, 186 S. W. 220. We might add, however, that we had examined the bills of exception before observing that they were filed too late and that neither of them present any error.
The facts in the record amply support the jury's conclusion of guilt. No error appearing, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.