Case Name: Albert Shaffer v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-04-13
Citations: 58 Tex. Crim. 647
Docket Number: No. 376
Parties: Albert Shaffer v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 647–651

Head Matter:
Albert Shaffer v. The State.
No. 376.
Decided April 13, 1910.
1. —Theft—Statement of Facts—Signature of Judge.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of theft, it appeared that what was intended as a statement of facts was not approved or signed by the trial judge, the same could not be considered. Following Lawrence v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 192, and other cases.
2. —Same—Statement of Facts—Rehearing.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of theft, the case was affirmed for want of a sufficient statement of facts, and it was shown upon motion for rehearing that the appellant was deprived both of the statement of facts and a perfect record in the case without his fault, the cause will be reversed and remanded.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Eobert B. Seay.
Appeal from a conviction of theft over the value of $50; penalty, three years imprisonment in- the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Horace Williams, for appellant.
John A. Mobley, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
RAMSEY, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the court below on the 13th day of April, 1909, on a charge of theft over the value of fifty dollars and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years.
The record shows that the 'term of court at which the conviction was suffered convened on the 5th day of April, 1909, and adjourned on July 3 of the same year. What purports to be a statement of facts was filed in the case July 23, 1909. Under the law in force at the time the case was tried this statement of facts was filed in due time. However, while agreed to both by counsel for the appellant and for the State, it was not approved by the trial court and can not,"therefore, be considered. It is well settled in this State that to be of any validity whatever the statement of facts must be approved and signed by the judge. Lawrence v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 192; Bennett v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 236; Johnson v. State, 29 Texas, 492. And further that a document purporting to be a statement of facts, and signed as such by the attorneys for the State and the accused, but not approved and signed by the judge, constitutes no part of the record, and in this court the case stands as though there had been no effort to make a statement of facts. Hurst v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 196; Baldwin v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 245; Bailey v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 579; Loakman v. State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 563; Lynn v. State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 515.
In this condition of the record there is no question presented which we are authorized to review. It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of the court below be and the same is hereby in all things affirmed.
Affirmed.