Case Name: LOVE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-06-26
Citations: 150 S.W. 183
Docket Number: 
Parties: LOVE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 150
Pages: 183–184

Head Matter:
LOVE v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 26, 1912.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 1912.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1099 ) — Review—Statement or Facts.
Where the trial court was not presented with a statement of facts, or with a certification that counsel were unable to agree with the district attorney, and requested him to prepare a statement of facts, an instrument sent up in the record could not be considered as a statement of facts; nor could the case be reversed for want of a statement of facts.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig. § 1099. ]
2. Ceiminal Law (§ 1097 ) — Review—Statement or Facts — Continuance.
In the absence of a statement of facts, the denial of a continuance could not be reviewed; there being nothing in the record from which the court could determine the materiality of the alleged absent testimony.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947, 3204; Dee. Dig. § 1097. ]
Appeal from District Court, Delta County ; R. L. Porter, Judge.
Charlie Love was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
I. B. Lane and Patteson & Patteson, all of Cooper, for appellant. 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:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of burglary, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
In the record there is a paper signed alone by the attorney for appellant. Accompanying the record is the affidavit of appellant's counsel. One of his co-counsel, Col. J. L. Young, when the case was tried on January 19th, agreed to perfect the record on appeal, but shortly thereafter sickened and died. The remaining counsel, upon being apprised of this fact, requested an extension of time in which to file bills of exception and a statement of facts. The court extended the time upon this showing until March 10, 1912. Counsel by this time had prepared one bill of exception and forwarded it to the court, and asked for a further extension of time, which was by the court refused; consequently this is the only bill that we can consider, being the only one in the record. Counsel also prepared a statement of facts and submitted it to the district attorney, but, upon their being unable to agree, has never presented to the court a statement of facts, nor certified to the court the fact that they could not agree with the district attorney, and requested him to prepare a statement of facts, and ' not having done so we can neither consider the instrument sent up with the record, nor reverse the case because of their failure to receive a statement of facts; they not having done what the law required as a prerequisite to our reversing the case because of a failure to secure a completed record. Under no circumstances are we authorized to consider a statement of facts not approved by the trial judge. Childers v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 128, 35 S. W. 980; Lawrence v. State, 7 Tex. App. 192; Bennett v. State, 16 Tex. App. 236; Johnson v. State, 29 Tex. 492; Hurst v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 196, 45 S. W. 573. And never having presented to the judge a statement of facts, we are not authorized to reverse the case. George v. State, 25 Tex. App. 243, 8 S. W. 25; Childers v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 129, 35 S. W. 980; Croomes v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 672, 51 S. W. 924, 53 S. W. 882. The affidavits of the district attorney and court stenog rapher on' file disclose a total lack of diligence.
The only bill of exceptions in the record relates to the action of the court in overruling the motion for continuance. As there is no statement of facts in the record, we cannot review this matter, because we cannot judge of the materiality of the testimony in the light of the record made in the trial of the case. Smith v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 569, 28 S. W. 471; Loakman v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 561, 25 S. W. 20; Holland v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 345, 20 S. W. 750.
The indictment in this case charges an offense, and, as the charge of the court submits this offense, in the condition of the record there is nothing presented we can review.
The judgment is affirmed.