Buckley v. State

• Decision Date: 30 November 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 11223.)
• Citation: 300 S.W. 67
• Parties: BUCKLEY v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 67

300 S.W. 67

BUCKLEY v. STATE.

(No. 11223.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 30, 1927.

Appeal from District Court, Crockett County; C. R. Sutton, Judge.

Bob Buckley was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Anderson & Mobley, of San Angelo, for appellant.

A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for robbery; punishment, 7½ years in the penitentiary.

Appellant was indicted in Upton county, but the venue was changed to Crockett county on the court's own motion. The trial term of the court below convened October 25, 1926, and adjourned October 27, 1926. The order overruling appellant's motion for new trial grants him 90 days from the adjournment of court in which to prepare and file bills of exception. Said order does not mention or refer to statement of facts, but by the terms of article 760, 1925 C. C. P., appellant is allowed 90 days from the overruling of the motion for new trial in which to file statement of facts. The 90-day period from the adjournment of the trial court expired on January 25, 1927. There appears in the record an order made by the court below extending the time for filing said bills of exception and statement of facts. The date of this extending order is March 7, 1927. Such order, made after the expiration of the time originally granted either by statute or by order, is ultra vires. Mireles v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 396, 266 S. W. 418. In no event has the trial court the power to extend the time for filing bills of exception and statement of facts beyond 90 days after the date of the notice of appeal. This is according to the provisions of said article 760, supra. The only bill of exceptions appearing in this record was filed on July 21, 1927, more than 6 months after the expiration of the date when same could have been legally filed. The statement of facts appears to have been filed the same day as said bill of exceptions. We cannot consider either. The indictment appears to properly charge the offense, and the charge of the court submits the law correctly.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.