Case Name: WILLIAMS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-06-19
Citations: 148 S.W. 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
Judges: DAVIDSON, P. J., not sitting.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 148
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
WILLIAMS v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 19, 1912.)
Criminal Law (§ 1144 ) — Record — Statement op Facts — Bill op Exceptions.
Where there is no statement of facts nor bill of exceptions, and the question raised by motion for new trial cannot be considered in the absence of the statement of facts, the court on appeal must presume that the action of the trial court was valid.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2736-2781, 2901, 3016-3037; Dec. Dig. § 1144. ]
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Robt. B. Slay, Judge.
Frank Williams was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
The appellant was convicted of theft of property over the value of $50, and his penalty fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
There is neither a statement of the facts nor bill of exceptions. The only questions attempted to be raised are by the motion for new trial. None of them are of such a nature as that we can consider them in the absence of a statement of facts. This court uniformly, under such circumstances, holds that it must presume that the action of the lower court was in every way valid and legal.
The judgment is affirmed.
DAVIDSON, P. J., not sitting.