Teague v. StateTeague v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Beauchamp
Lead Opinion
*84on appellant’s motion for rehearing.
DAVIDSON, Judge.Appellant urges several grounds as to why the stаtement of facts should be considered notwithstanding the late filing. Among these are that aрpellant’s counsel forwarded the statement of facts to the district clerk, with a request that the approval signature of the judgе and the state’s counsel be obtained; thаt when the clerk received the statemеnt of facts, a file mark was placed thеreon which was well within the ninety-day period rеquired for filing it. The clerk made no effort, howеver, to secure the approval signatures, as requested, deeming such not to be within the performance of official duties оf the office of district clerk.
The statemеnt of facts was not approved by the distriсt judge or state’s counsel until long after the expiration of the ninety-day period allоwed for filing of statement of facts, at which time it was again filed by the clerk.
Until the statement of facts had been approved by the trial court or counsel for both the state аnd the appellant, it was not subject to be filed, and the first filing was therefore not effeсtive.
Counsel for an appellant is bound tо see that the statement of facts is prоperly approved and to follow it up to see that it is filed as required by law. When this duty is delegated to others, counsel and appellant are bound by any negligence or laches of such agents. Morris v. State, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 503, 28 S. W. 2d 155; McHenry v. State, 141 Tex. Cr. R. 118, 147 S. W. 2d 448.
We are unable to agree that this record warrants the consideration of the statement of facts not filed within the time allowed by law.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.
Lead Opinion
Appellant was assessed a penalty of four years in the penitentiary upon his conviction for murder without malice.
The appеal was originally filed in this court on June 5, 1952. We find a supplemental transcript filed on Septеmber 18, 1952, and another filed October 4th, 1952, From thesе it develops that notice of apрeal was given on May 2, 1952, and 109 days thereafter the statement of facts and bills of excеption were filed with the clerk of the district сourt. This was 19 days after the time had expired for their filing. The statement of facts and bills of exception cannot be considered аnd nothing is presented in the transcript for our consideration.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.