Case Name: Fred Retza v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-10-24
Citations: 95 Tex. Crim. 491
Docket Number: No. 7708
Parties: Fred Retza v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 491–492

Head Matter:
Fred Retza v. The State.
No. 7708.
Decided October 24, 1923.
1. —Theft of Automobile — Statement of Facts.
Where the statement of facts was not filed in the trial court until twenty-two days after the expiration of the ninety days prescribed by law, it cannot be considered on appeal, and the judge had no authority to extend the time beyond the ninety days. Following Roberts v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 7, and other cases.
2. —Same—Practice on Appeal.
In the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exception, the judgment below must be affirmed.
Appeal from the District Court of Galveston. Tried below before tbe Honorable Robert G. Street.
Appeal from a conviction of theft of an automobile; penalty, four years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
L. C. Brady and L. M. Kenyen for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.-

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
— Conviction is for theft of an automobile. Punishment, four years in the penitentiary.
The record contains no bills of exception, and the instrument accompanying it purporting to be a statement of facts cannot be considered.
The trial term of court adjourned on November 28th. Ninety days from adjournment was given to file statement of facts and bills of exception. The ninety days expired February 26th. On February 21st the learned trial judge made an order by which he undertook to grant thirty days additional time for the filing. The statement of facts was not filed in the trial court until March 20th, which was twenty-two days after the expiration of the ninety days prescribed by law. The judge had no authority to extend the time beyond the ninety days. Roberts v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep. 7, 136 S. W. Rep. 482; Benson v. State, 85 Texas Crim. Rep. 126, 210 S. W. Rep. 126; Gowan v. State, 73 Texas Crim. Rep. 222, 164 S. W. Rep. 6; Johnson v. State, 93 Texas Crim. Rep., 224, 246 S. W. Rep. 390. (For other authorities see collation under Art. 845, Vermon's C. C. P.) No excuse appears in the record accounting for -the delay in preparing for appeal.
We regret that the purported statement of facts cannot be considered. Without it, and in the absence of bills of exception, we must order an affirmance of the judgment.
Affirmed.