Court Opinion

ID: 9672551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:57:02.888818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:17.101392
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant’s counsel has tendered to this Court as an exhibit to his motion for rehearing a stipulation executed by all the prosecutors involved and joined in by himself in which it is agreed that he did in fact except to the action of the court in overruling his objections and exceptions to the charge and that such exception was, through inadvertence and oversight, omitted from the certificate of the court.
There is no escape from the conclusion that if we considered such stipulaton we would in effect be permitting an amendment to a bill of exception long after Ae statutory time for filing the same has expired and would be overruling a long line of auAorities which hold that such may not be done.
In the recent case of Gonzalez v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 64, 297 S.W.2d 144, we held that the district clerk was without power to antedate or attempt to file back objections and exceptions to the court’s charge. Therein, we cited Ortiz v. State, 121 Tex.Cr.R. 438, 53 S.W.2d 58, as authority for the rule that this might not be done even with the consent of the trial court. The effect of such holding is that a bill of exception must be perfected under Article 760d, V.A. C.C.P., within 90 days after the giving of notice of appeal and that once that time has elapsed no bills filed or perfected thereafter will be considered.
In Tindol v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 187, 239 S.W.2d 396, we said:
“In this connection attention is directed to the rule that a bill of exception *56becomes an unamendable instrument once the appeal is perfected and the time for filing such bills has expired, because the trial court is then without jurisdiction to make any order whatsoever in the case. For this Court to allow the filing of amendments or additions to bills in cases on appeal would so complicate and delay the adjudication of a cause of action that this Court might never remain current with its docket. This we must do in order to properly perform our function in the judicial system.”
See also Crawford v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 147, 305 S.W.2d 362, and Smith v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 294, 313 S.W.2d 291, and cases there cited.
I join in the overruling of the motion for rehearing.