Case Name: Ronald Batiste SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1972-03-22
Citations: 478 S.W.2d 947
Docket Number: No. 44642
Parties: Ronald Batiste SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 478
Pages: 947–948

Head Matter:
Ronald Batiste SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 44642.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 22, 1972.
Rehearing Denied May 9, 1972.
Emmett Colvin, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and W. T. Westmoreland, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
ROBERTS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery. Trial was before a jury, with punishment set by the court at confinement for 15 years.
At the outset, we note that appellant's brief was not timely filed in the trial court. The record was approved on April 14, 1971. On May 14, 1971, the trial court extended the time in which to file the brief until June 14, 1971. Appellant's brief was not filed until June 16, 1971. June 14, 1971, was a Monday. Therefore, appellant's brief was not timely filed. That being the case, this Court will review only those questions which "should be reviewed in the interest of justice." Art. 40.09, § 13, Vernon's Ann. C.C.P. Stoddard v. State, 475 S.W.2d 744 (1972); Reeves v. State, 457 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.Crim.App.1970); Jackson v. State, 449 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.Crim.App.1969); Swanson v. State, 447 S.W.2d 942 (Tex.Crim.App.1969); Sewell v. State, 440 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Crim.App.1969); Harlan v. State, 430 S.W.2d 213 Tex.Crim.App.1968); Castillo v. State, 421 S.W.2d 112 (Tex.Crim.App.1967).
Appellant raises only one ground of error in his untimely filed brief. We have examined the record and have concluded that the ground of error does not require review "in the interest of justice" and will not be considered by this Court. No question of indigency is raised.
The judgment is affirmed.