Court Opinion

ID: 9767315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:16:29.037053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.463714
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant complains that our original disposition hereof deprived him of a consideration of his bills of exception as authorized by Article 759 (a), C. C. P. (Acts 1951, 52nd Legislature, p. 819, ch. 465).
The statement of facts filed by appellant and agreed to by his counsel contains no index to the bills of exception incorporated therein. Recently, in Greenwood v. State, No. 25,637, (page 58, this volume), 246 S. W. (2d) 191, in commenting on the mandatory effect of Section 3 of said Act, we said:
“If appellant desired to rely upon the exceptions contained in the statement of facts, it was incumbent upon him to see that the same had as a part thereof an index to the exceptions relied upon before he filed it.”
Absent such an index, our consideration is limited to the formal bills presented. These, we discussed in our original opinion.
Appellant now contends that Limbrick v. State, 117 Texas Cr. R. 578, 36 S. W. (2d) 1026, cited in our original opinion, should not be controlling herein, because in that case Limbrick took the stand and testified to substantially the same facts embraced in the testimony of the officer, while in the case at bar the appellant did not testify. We do not think the fact that the defendant testified was controlling in the Limbrick case. We find the same rule often expressed by this court, as will be seen from the cases cited in Texas Digest, Crim. Law 1091(10) i, Certificate establishing grounds of objection. This court recently held bills setting forth only the objections made to be deficient. Garza v. State, No. 25,510, (Page 6, this Volume), 246 S. W. (2d) 635.
*95Appellant raises the question for the first time that he was sentenced and notice of appeal was perfected after the expiration of the term of court in which he was tried.
Appellant cites us Hinman v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 434, 113 S. W. 280, and Robinson v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 559, 113 S. W. 763, as authority for the assertion that the trial court was without power to sentence appellant. The Hinman case held that where appeal had been perfected to this court, the trial court was without authority to sentence appellant while such appeal was pending. It will be noted that the court in that case instructed the .trial court to enter proper sentence at the next term. This was done by virtue of the authority of Article 837, C. C. P., 1895, which is now Article 772, and which reads as follows:
“If there is a failure from any cause whatever to enter judgment and pronounce sentence during the term, the judgment may be entered and sentence pronounced at any succeeding term of the court, unless a new trial has been granted, or the judgment arrested, or an appeal has been taken.”
Remaining convinced that we properly decided the cause originally, the appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.