Bridges v. StateBridges v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Dice
Lead Opinion
Aрpellant was convicted upon a plea of guilty before the court without a jury under The Securities Act, Art. 581-1, V.A.C.S., for the offense of the unlawful sale of securities and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
No statement of facts of the evidence adduced upon the trial accompanies the record and there are no bills of exception.
Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the indictment fails to charge an offense because it did not negative the exempt transactions enumеrated in sec. 5 of The Securities Act. The contention is urged as fundamental error, no exception or motion to quash thе indictment having been filed by appellant in the trial court.
In Baker vs. State, 132 Texas Cr. Rep. 527, 106 S.W. 2d 308, Judge Lаttimore speaking for this Court, in announcing the rule with referencе to the necessity of negativing statutory exceptions in chаrging an offense in an indictment said:
“From what we have said above, and as far as we have been able to ascertain, our courts have uniformly held that when the *509• Legislature sees fit to crеate exceptions to the general penal provisions of a statute if such exceptions be placed in а separate section or article from the one containing the definition of the offense, or if they be not such as tо be essential to the definition of the offense, it will not be neсessary to negative such exceptions in the indictment chаrging such offense * * * .”
See also 1 Branch’s Ann. P.C. 2d Ed. par. 530, p. 508, and casеs there cited.
An examination of The Securities Act clearly reflects that the exempt transactions, separatеly enumerated in sec. 5 thereof, are not a part of thе offense of unlawfully selling securities as defined in other sectiоns of the Act. It was not necessary that the indictment negative the exempt transactions enumerated in sec. 5 of the Act in сharging appellant with the offense.
The allegations contained in the second count of the indictment under which appellant stands convicted are sufficient to charge an offense under the Act.
The judgment is affirmed.
Rehearing
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.On rehearing, appellant makes cеrtain contentions which he alleges are supported by the statement of facts and urges that this Court consider what purpоrts to be a statement of facts for the first time. It does not aрpear to have been approved by the trial judge оr prosecuting attorney and was not filed with the clerk of the triаl court as required by Article 759a, V.A.C.C.P., and the holding of this Court in Couch v. State, 255 S.W. 2d 223.
The affidavit of appellant and his counsel to the effect that the statement of facts was presented to the trial judge for approval on June 29, 1961, which was within the time allowed by the judge, does not show sufficient diligence; he must go further and see thаt it is approved and filed in time. Ex parte Denson, 165 Texas Cr. Rep. 420, 307 S.W. 2d 952; Randolph v. State, 155 Texas Cr. Rep. 432, 234 S.W. 2d 235; Webb v. State, 109 Texas Cr. Rep. 31, 4 S.W. 2d 45. There is no shоwing that appellant or his counsel gave the matter of thе approval of the statement of facts any further attention after June 29, 1961.
*510The statement of facts before us therefore cannot be considered and the motion for rehearing is overruled.