Looper v. State
| Decision Date | 19 April 1911 |
| Citation | 136 S.W. 791 |
| Parties | LOOPER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Johnson County Court; J. B. Haynes, Judge.
Jake Looper was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Phillips & Bledsoe, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
By complaint and information defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquors to W. A. Webb on or about July 1, 1910, after prohibition had been carried in Johnson county, and all of the proper orders, publications, etc., had been made. The case was tried September 14, 1910, the defendant found guilty, and his penalty fixed at a fine of $25 and 20 days' imprisonment in the county jail. The court at which the trial was had adjourned on November 5, 1910. There was an order entered by the court allowing 30 days after adjournment in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. The statement of facts was filed December 5, 1910. There are no bills of exception in the record. The Assistant Attorney General has made a motion to strike out the statement of facts on two grounds: First, because not incorporated in the record and certified to by the clerk, as is required in county court misdemeanor cases, where there is no court stenographer; second, because the statement of facts was not filed within 20 days after the adjournment of court.
It has uniformly been held by this court that statements of facts in county court misdemeanor cases, where there is no court stenographer, must either be filed in term time or not later than 20 days after adjournment, when the court grants an order giving that time after adjournment in which to file same, and that the county court has no power or authority to grant longer than 20 days after adjournment to file statements of facts. It has also uniformly been held that statements of facts in county court cases must be copied into the record by the clerk and certified to by him, instead of the original statement of facts being sent up, as is the case in felony cases from the district court, where the court has a regular court stenographer. The motion of the Assistant Attorney General is therefore sustained on both grounds, and what purports to be a statement of facts found with the papers in this case is therefore stricken out and will not be considered.
The other ground complained of by the motion for new trial is that the court erred in charging the jury that the sale of intoxicating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. State
...copied in the record, and the Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to strike it out. Under the authority of Looper v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 96, 136 S. W. 791, Wagoner v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 180, 140 S. W. 339, Jenkins v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 141 S. W. 222, and Skinner v. Sta......
-
Drake v. State
...facts cannot be considered. It is unnecessary to cite the cases, though we call attention to some of the more recent ones. Looper v. State (two cases) 136 S. W. 791; Carney v. State, 140 S. W. 440; Wagoner v. State, 140 S. W. 339; Morris v. State, 140 S. W. 775; Brogdon v. State, 140 S. W. ......
-
Wagoner v. State
...stenographic act passed by the Legislature in felony cases tried in the district court. Mosher v. State, 136 S. W. 467; Looper v. State (two cases) 136 S. W. 791, 792; Nichols v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 211, 115 S. W. 1196; Trinkle v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 567, 123 S. W. 1114. So that in this......
-
Morris v. State
...cases, which are here referred to. Misso v. State, 135 S. W. 1173; Hooper v. State, 138 S. W. 396; Davis v. State, 138 S. W. 396; Looper v. State, 136 S. W. 791; Mosher v. State, 136 S. W. There being neither statement of facts nor bills of exception in the record, this court presumes that ......