Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 18 January 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 6526.)
• Citation: 237 S.W. 920
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 920

237 S.W. 920

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

(No. 6526.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

January 18, 1922.

Rehearing Granted February 15, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Cottle County; J. H. Milam, Judge.

Sam Williams, alias Sad Sam, was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Judgment reformed and affirmed.

W. J. Arrington and W. A. Williams, both of Paducah, for appellant.

R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for murder. Punishment, eleven years in penitentiary.

The appeal must be dismissed. The caption to the transcript shows the court to have convened October 11, 1920, and to have adjourned November 6, 1920. The charge of the court bears heading, "April Term, A. D. 1921," and file mark of "April 15, 1921." The verdict appears to have been received and judgment entered at the April term of court, 1921. The only bill of exception was not filed until August 6, 1921, and the statement of facts likewise shows to have been filed on that date. It might be assumed that the case was tried at a term of court subsequent to that indicated by the caption, but, if so, the date of convening and adjourning thereof nowhere appears in such manner as may be considered. The necessity therefor is made manifest by our opinion in Mandosa v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 225 S. W. 169, and Davis v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 183, 225 S. W. 532.

We would call attention, however, to the fact that an application was made for an extension of time in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. A recital in the application is to the effect that court adjourned on May 7, 1921. If the term of court at which appellant was tried did in fact adjourn on May 7, 1921, and a corrected transcript should show this, then it appears that the statement of facts 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. 324.

For the reasons given, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

On Reinstatement of Appeal.

At a former day of this term the appeal was dismissed. An amended transcript having been filed supplying the omissions in the original transcript, the appeal is reinstated. The term of court at which the trial was had adjourned May 7, 1921. The statement of facts and bill of exception were not filed in the lower court until after the expiration of 90 days from adjournment, hence cannot be considered.

The question is raised in this court that the verdict returned by the jury is insufficient to support the judgment of conviction. The verdict as copied in the judgment reads:

"We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of murder and his punishment to be eleven years in state penitentiary.

                         "[Signed] A. L. Green, Foreman."
                

...