Duboise v. State
| Decision Date | 27 April 1956 |
| Citation | 4 McCanless 93,200 Tenn. 93,290 S.W.2d 646 |
| Parties | , 200 Tenn. 93 Wylie DUBOISE v. STATE of Tennessee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
John J. Caldwell, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Nat Tipton, Advocate General, Nashville, for the State.
The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried and convicted for the offense of assault and battery on a female under 12 years of age. His punishment for this offense was fixed by the jury at confinement in the State prison for 25 years. It is from this judgment and the overruling of the motion for new trial filed therein that the plaintiff appeals.
The State moves that the judgment be affirmed because the bill of exceptions was not filed in time allowed by law. The assignments of error present questions of fact which can only be reached by a valid bill of exceptions. We have examined the technical record and we find no error therein. If the bill of exceptions is not legally and seasonably filed we cannot consider it.
On April 20, 1955, the motion for new trial filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error was overruled and he was allowed 30 days from that date within which to have signed his bill of exceptions. On May 25, 1955, the trial court signed an order in which he undertook to allow an additional 30 days for the filing of the bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions is marked filed June 20, 1955, or more than 60 days from April 20, 1955, May having 31 days.
Section 27-110 and Section 27-111, T.C.A., provides that a person is automatically allowed 30 days from the date on which the motion for new trial was overruled within which to file his bill of exceptions. These Sections likewise provide that during such 30 days an extension, not to exceed 60 days, may be obtained from the trial judge within which to file his bill of exceptions. For reasons heretofore stated in at least two published opinions it is absolutely necessary that the extension beyond the 30 days allowed by statute from the overruling of the motion for new trial be entered within this period. In the case now before us the purported extension was granted more than 30 days after this time and consequently constitutes a nullity. Suggs v. State, 195 Tenn. 170, 258 S.W.2d 747.
After the State's brief was filed, taking the position above outlined, the plaintiff in error countered with a reply brief to this brief in which he attempts to raise the question, and to show by photostatic copies of the record, that the trial judge had never signed the minutes which contained the order convicting the plaintiff in error; the order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. State
...732; Hickle v. Irick (1956), 42 Tenn.App. 183, 300 S.W.2d 54; Cobb v. Brown (1956), 42 Tenn.App. 595, 305 S.W.2d 241; Duboise v. State (1956), 200 Tenn. 93, 290 S.W.2d 646; Jackson v. Handell (1959), 46 Tenn.App. 234, 327 S.W.2d 55, and This collation leads to two prime conclusions, (1) tha......
-
Mitchell v. State
...for any purpose on appeal. Thomas v. State, 206 Tenn. 633, 337 S.W.2d 1; Collier v. State, 202 Tenn. 689, 308 S.W.2d 427; DuBoise v. State, 200 Tenn. 93, 290 S.W.2d 646; Sims v. State, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 623, 448 S.W.2d 93. This is so because the requirements of TCA § 27--111 are Jurisdictional......
-
Thomas v. State
...of exceptions stricken. Anderson v. State, 195 Tenn. 155, 258 S.W.2d 741; Suggs v. State, 195 Tenn. 170, 258 S.W.2d 747; Du Boise v. State, 200 Tenn. 93, 290 S.W.2d 646; Gerald Roy Bryant v. State, Lincoln Criminal, opinion February 5, 1960, unreported. While the trial judge may, within the......
-
McCain v. State
...in the appellate court. Thomas v. State, 206 Tenn. 633, 337 S.W.2d 1; Collier v. State, 202 Tenn. 689, 308 S.W.2d 427; DuBoise v. State, 200 Tenn. 93, 290 S.W.2d 646; Arrants v. Sweetwater Bank and Trust Company, 55 Tenn.App. 631, 404 S.W.2d 253. Such has been the law of this State for more......