Case Name: Wilson Hutto v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-10-08
Citations: 98 Tex. Crim. 517
Docket Number: No. 8393
Parties: Wilson Hutto v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 517–521

Head Matter:
Wilson Hutto v. The State.
No. 8393.
Delivered October 8, 1924.
Rehearing denied December 17, 1924.
1. —Receiving Stolen Property — Charge of the Court — Exceptions to.
In order to he considered on appeal, exceptions to the charge of the court, must show that they were authenticated by the trial judge, and must also show the time when same were presented to him.
2. —Same—Special Charges — Depending upon the Evidence.
Where special charges are requested, refused, and exceptions noted upon the charge, they cannot be reviewed by this court where they relate to matters depending upon the evidence, and no statement of facts appear in the record.
ON MOTION FOB REHEARING.
3. — Same—Indictment—Copy of — Waiver of Bight.
When his case was called for trial after having been continued three times, appellant demanded a copy of the information, and it was refused. The right of an accused to a copy of the indictment or information against him is constitutional. Art. 1, sec. 10, S’. C. This right can however be waived. See opinion for collation of authorities. Under' the showing in this case we cannot hold the action of the trial court,to have-been erroneous.
Appeal from the County Court of Haskell County. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. Lee, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for receiving stolen property less than $50 in value; penalty, five days in jail, and a fine of twenty dollars.
W. H. Murchison, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
— Conviction is for receiving stolen property less than fifty dollars in value, with punishment of five days in jail and a fine of twenty dollars.
No statement of the facts proven accompanies the record. The transcript contains what purports to be exceptions to the charge. It is not authenticated in any way by the trial judge, and it is not shown when the same was presented, nor whether it was ever called to the judge's attention. Salter v. State, 78 Texas Crim. Rep., 325, 180 S. W. 691; Castelberry v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 502, 228 S. W. 216; Rhodes v. State, 93 Texas Crim. Rep., 514, 248 S. W. 679.
Three special charges were requested, refused and exceptions noted upon the charges. They all relate to matters depending upon the evidence, and we are not in a position to pass upon them iú its absence.
Four bills of exception appear in the record none of which may be considered.. The motion for new trial was overruled on July 18th, and the trial court made an order granting 30 days after adjournment of the term in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. This order of extension he had the power to make. Gribble v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep., 52, 210 S. W. 215. Court adjourned for the term on August 22d. The thirty days expired on September 21st. All the bills were filed on September 24th, three days after the period of extension, hence too late to merit consideration. Victory v. State, 254 S. W. 478, and the authorities there cited; see also notes under Art. 845, C. C. P., Vernon's Civil and Crim. Statutes, 1922 Supplement.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.