Court Opinion

ID: 9778156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:34:05.759058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:04.144507
License: Public Domain

OPINION
ODOM, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction on a plea of guilty to the court for attempted burglary of a vehicle. V.T.C.A., Penal Code Secs. 30.04 and 15.01. Punishment was assessed at 90 days in the county jail and a $150.00 fine, and appellant was placed on misdemeanor probation. Art. 42.13, V.A.C. C.P.
The record on appeal consists only of a transcript of documents on file in the proceeding; there is no transcript of the court reporter’s notes, nor is there an agreed statement or bill of exception. Art. 40.-09(6), (14), V.A.C.C.P. There is no indication that appellant is indigent, and no briefs *931have been filed. We find no unassigned error that should be considered in the interest of justice.
We observe that a motion for new trial was filed on January 26, 1976, and was heard and overruled by the court on that date. Notice of appeal was then given. Although this was over ten days after conviction, the trial court’s consideration of the motion will be accorded a presumption of regularity and this Court will not require a showing of good cause in the record on appeal to support an extension of time for filing or amending a motion for new trial under Art. 40.05, V.A.C.C.P. Contrast this rule with (1) the record must show good cause for late notice of appeal, Robinson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 505 S.W.2d 298; Morton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 121; Perez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 496 S.W.2d 627; (2) the trial court is without power to extend time for determining a motion for new trial, Morton v. State, supra; St. Jules v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 438 S.W.2d 568; and (3) good cause for an extension of time to file or amend a motion for new trial must appear in the record to support any challenge to a finding of no good cause, Defore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 460 S.W.2d 128.
Giving the trial court’s action the presumption of regularity due it, we find we do have jurisdiction of the cause.
The judgment is affirmed.