Samples v. State

Citation190 S.W. 486
Decision Date06 December 1916
Docket Number(No. 4304.)
PartiesSAMPLES v. STATE.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; E. W. Nicholson, Judge.

F. S. Samples was convicted of receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been acquired by means of theft, and appeals. Affirmed.

S. O. Jones, of Wichita Falls, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been acquired by means of theft.

The court lasted over eight weeks; sentence was pronounced upon appellant on the 12th day of August; court adjourned on the 4th day of September. Under the law, as announced by the recent decisions, appellant is allowed 90 days from the date of sentence in which to file statement of facts. There was an order of the court entered, extending the time in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception, on the 29th day of September, which was more than 30 days after final judgment. The order of the district court did not authorize the filing of bills of exception, which occurred in the early part of November. In order to authorize the filing of bills of exception, the extension order should have been made before the expiration of 30 days from the date of the sentence. This eliminates the bills of exception. The statement of facts was filed within the 90 days, authorizing such filing, and shows that appellant received the property, knowing it to have been stolen. This is the state's case. Appellant denies this, and introduced evidence showing that Miller, the accomplice from whom he received the property, left it with him, and finally gave some of the stolen property to him with the statement that he had won it in the oil field in a poker game. In other words, under appellant's theory and evidence, Miller did not steal the property, but won it in a game and gave it to appellant. These issues were submitted to the jury, and the case went against appellant.

The court's charge is defective in submitting the issue of accomplice testimony. No exception was taken to this, however, at the time, and the first notice was taken by appellant in his motion for a new trial and then in a very general way. He asked a charge, which the court refused, which would have corrected one of the errors in the court's charge on that question. To this he reserved no exception, but brought it in his motion for new trial. It seems that under our recent statute and decisions construing it this would be too late. Those matters, therefore, cannot be revised.

There is another question which will be noticed. Appellant's motion for new trial was overruled and sentence pronounced, notice of appeal given, and an appeal recognizance entered into. The recognizance was entered into on the 19th day of August, 1916; the sentence was pronounced on August 12, 1916, 7 days prior to entering into recognizance, and the motion for new trial was overruled on the 12th of August. So appellant, under these dates and this condition of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Moore
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 6 de junho de 2007
    ...motion for new trial when the defendant neither asked for leave to do so nor withdrew notice of appeal); Samples v. State, 80 Tex.Crim. 418, 421, 190 S.W. 486, 487 (1916) (same); Bankston v. State, 80 Tex.Crim. 629, 192 S.W. 1064 (1917) (trial court could entertain third motion for new tria......
  • Tyson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 28 de abril de 1943
    ...of appeal had been withdrawn, and that the matter of jury misconduct should not be considered. The State cites us to Samples v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 418, 190 S.W. 486; Humphries v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 637, 186 S.W. 332; Tores v. State, 74 Tex.Cr.R. 37, 166 S.W. 523; Navarro v. State, 141 Tex......
  • Leago v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 2 de janeiro de 1929
    ...order. Sanders v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 34, 129 S. W. 605; Armstrong v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 59, 130 S. W. 1011; Samples v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 418, 190 S. W. 486; Parker v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 81, 200 S. W. 1083; Hart v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 653, 218 S. W. 1054; Fuston v. State, 94 T......
  • Wiley v. State, 24338.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 13 de abril de 1949
    ...34 S.W. 271; Ansley v. State, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 435, 239 S.W. 613; Hill v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 364, 257 S.W. 262; and Samples v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 418, 190 S.W. 486. Moreover, the granting of a motion for a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and unless it is made to......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT