Case Name: Malcom Bankston v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-11-01
Citations: 80 Tex. Crim. 287
Docket Number: No. 4271
Parties: Malcom Bankston v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
Malcom Bankston v. The State.
No. 4271.
Decided November 1, 1916.
1. —Theft—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception.
Where the statement of facts and bills of exception were filed nineteen days after the adjournment of the County Court without any order allowing them to be filed after adjournment, the same can not be considered on appeal.
2. —Same—Judgment Nunc Fro Tunci
Where appellant ten days after affirmance of this case and nearly six months after the time when the County Court adjourned, made a motion in the lower court to enter the judgment nune pro tunc allowing him twenty days within which to file the statement of facts and bills of exception and such order was entered by the court, the same was without jurisdiction and can not be considered on appeal. Following Lewis v. State, 34 Texas Grim. Rep., 126 and other cases.
Appeal from the County Court of Bunnels. Tried below before the Hon. M. Kleberg.
Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, a fine of ten dollars and twelve hours confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
J. W. Powell, J. P. Gogdill, and B. B. Truly, for appellant.
G. G. McDonald', Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.
This is a conviction for misdemeanor theft. The statement of facts and bills of exception were filed nineteen days after the term of court adjourned without any order allowing the statement of facts to be filed after adjournment. The Assistant Attorney General's motion to strike them out on that account must, therefore, be granted. Without these no question is presented which we can review.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.