Romero v. State
| Decision Date | 19 November 1913 |
| Parties | ROMERO v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Reeves County; S. J. Isaacks, Judge.
Jose Romero was convicted of horse theft, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Gibson & Wilson, of Pecos, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of horse theft, his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Overruling the motion for new trial on the 29th of May, the court adjourned on the 31st. The court entered an order granting 30 days' time in which to file statement of facts. After the expiration of the 30 days, another order was entered granting 30 days' additional time. The filing of the order was dated back so as to make it come within the time of the previous 30 days. Appellant, being unable to pay the stenographer, filed a pauper's affidavit. The stenographer was ordered to make out the statement of facts in duplicate, which he did by questions and answers. This was filed in the trial court on the 5th of July, 30-odd days after adjournment of court.
Appellant claims he was deprived of a statement of facts by reason of these matters, and apparently bases this upon the idea that the second order for 30 days was not legal, and, the stenographer not having filed the statement of facts within the original first 30 days, it was illegal, and he has been thereby deprived of a statement of facts. We cannot concur with this idea. The act of 1911, p. 267, provides that the statement of facts may be prepared and filed at any time before time for filing the transcript in this court, and the decisions of this court construing this article have held that appellant had 90 days within which to file statement of facts. It is unnecessary to cite these cases. The statement of facts transcribed by the stenographer shows to have been filed on the 5th of July, 1913, but neither agreed to by counsel nor approved by the judge. There still remained the difference between the 5th of July and the 90 days, which would have terminated on the 31st of August, in which appellant could have prepared a statement of facts had he used ordinary diligence. A transcript of the evidence made by the stenographer was filed with the papers in the clerk's office, and accessible to defendant and his counsel. We therefore hold, under the circumstances, that he has not been deprived by the court or any of the officers of having his evidence brought properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Glass
...Cr. App.) 158 S. W. 1114;Haynes v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 159 S. W. 1059;Thompson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 160 S. W. 685;Romero v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 160 S. W. 1193;Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 154 Ky. 293, 157 S. W. 369;Huffman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 152 S. W. 638;State v. S......
-
State v. Glass
...error cannot be predicated upon the failure of the court to instruct upon the law applicable to circumstantial evidence. Romero v. State, 72 Tex.Crim. 105, 160 S.W. 1193; State v. Alley, 149 Iowa 196, 128 N.W. State v. Colvin, 24 S.D. 567, 124 N.W. 749. See also State v. Rosencrans, 9 N.D. ......
-
Hollingsworth v. State
...of the term of court in which to file the statement of facts. Redman v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 374, 149 S. W. 670; Romero v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 105, 160 S. W. 1193. The bills of exception, in order to be considered, must have been filed within the 60 days Bill No. 1 reserved exceptions to......
-
Williams v. State
...and bill of exception were not filed in the lower court until after the expiration of 90 days from adjournment. See Romero v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 105, 160 S. W. 1193; Maxwell v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 153 S. W. For the reasons given, the appeal is ordered dismissed. On Reinstatement o......