Case Name: ROMEZ v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-12-13
Citations: 245 S.W. 914
Docket Number: No. 7304
Parties: ROMEZ v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 245
Pages: 914–915

Head Matter:
ROMEZ v. STATE.
(No. 7304.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 13, 1922.)
(. Criminal law &wkey;1098 — Statement of facts in question and answer form not available on appeal.
A statement of facts in question and answer form is not a statement of facts within Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 844c, and cannot be considered on appeal.
2. Criminal law &wkey;>l 144('/2) — Presumption in favor of judgment where indictment is regular, statement of facts insufficient, and no bills of exception in record.
Where the indictment appears to be regular, the statement of facts is in such condition as not to he considered, and there are no bills of exception in the record, everything must be indulged in favor of the regularity of the judgment.
<&»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
John Romez was convicted of attempt to commit burglary, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen.,* for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Appellant was convicted for attempt to commit the offense of burglary, his punishment being assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.
The record before us is without any bills of exception, and the state has filed a motion to strike from the record the statement of facts because it consists entirely of questions and answers. A statement of facts in question and answer form is not a statement of facts within article 844c, C. C. P., and cannot be considered on appeal. King v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 145, 198 S. W. 782; Kitchens v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 324, 203 S. W. 768; Ferguson v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 272, 202 S. W. 733; Roberts v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 511, 204 S. W. 866; Thomas v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 42, 210 S. W. 201; Emberlin v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 399, 212 S. W. 952.
The indictment appears to be regular. The statement of facts being in such condition that it may not be considered, and there being no bills of exception in the record, everything must be indulged in favor of the regularity of the judgment, and the same will be affirmed.