Court Opinion

ID: 9681424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:50:03.46149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:33.909900
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
A statement of facts, approved by the trial judge since the affirmance of the judgment by per curiam opinion on November 1, 1961, has been filed and forwarded to this court. The state *6challenges the late filing of such statement of facts, and cites Selvidge v. State, 171 Texas Cr. Rep. 140, 345, S.W. 2d 523.
Prior to the amendment of Art. 759a, Sec. 4, V.A.C.C.P. in 1959 (Acts 56th Legislature, 1st C.S. p. 20), said section read: “The defendant shall file said statement of facts in duplicate, with the clerk of the trial court within ninety (90) days after the date of giving notice of appeal.” There was no authority elsewhere in the Code whereby the trial judge could extend the time for filing the statement of facts.
The 56th Legislature amended Section 4 of Art. 759a by adding thereto:
“and for good cause shown, the judge trying the cause may further extend the time in which to file the statement of facts, and shall have the power, in term time or vacation, upon application for good cause to extend for as many times as deemed necessary the time for preparation and filing of statement of facts, and the approval of the statement of facts after the expiration of the ninety (90) day period shall be sufficient proof that the time for filing toas properly extended.”
The state’s brief presents strong argument why there should be some limitation upon the time which the trial court may allow by extension. The legislature, however, has fixed no such limitation.
The legislature having provided that the trial judge may extend the time for filing the statement of facts for good cause shown, without reference to whether the transcript has been forwarded or whether the case has been submitted, this court is without authority to do other than comply with the statute. Whether there should be a limitation upon extensions by the trial court is for the legislature.
If Selvidge v. State, supra, supports the state’s position it should be overruled.
I respectfully dissent.