
    MAY v. STATE.
    (No. 7498.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 28, 1923.
    On Motion for Rehearing, April 18, 1923.)
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    Criminal law (&wkey;>lll(}(8) — Showing on application for certiorari to perfect record held insufficient.
    Where on appeal there was neither statement of facts nor bills of exception in the record, but appellant, on presenting a motion for rehearing accompanied by an application for certiorari to perfect the record, averred that he had made a pauper’s affidavit under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 845a, a copy of such affidavit being attached, although there was no' evidence that it had ever been’ filed"; the showing made was insufficient, since not only must- the record show an affidavit, in proper form made and filed, but that the same was called to the attention of the trial court, in order that he might have made an order directing, the court stenographer to make out and forward the desired statement of facts.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas- County, C. A. Pippén, Judge. ‘
    Tex May was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Nelms & Short, of Dallas, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for robbery with punishment of 25 years in the penitentiary.

■There are no bills of exception, in the record and no statement of facts. The indictment charges an offense, and the judgment appears to be in proper form.

The judgment must be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

This case was recently affirmed; it appearing that there was neither statement of facts nor bills of exception in the record^ Appellant presents a motion for rehearing accompanied by an application for certiorari to perfect the record. He avers that he made a pauper’s affidavit under article 845a, Vernon’s O. O. P., and attaches a purported copy of such affidavit Same appears to have been sworn to before a notary public, but contains no evidence of having ever been filed. This is the showing made for rehearing and upon the application for certiorari. This is not sufficient. Not only must the record show that the affidavit in proper form was made and filed, but it must further appear that same was called to the attention of the trial court in order that he might have made an order directing the court stenographer to make out and forward the desired statement of facts. Wood v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 609, 150 S. W. 194; Olivus v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 191, 134 S. W. 694; Jackson v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 292, 156 S. W. 1183; Lewis v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. R. 509, 171 S. W. 217. Not only is there no showing of any effort to secure the order of the trial court for such statement of facts, but there is no certification by any officer of the trial court that the affidavit of appellant was ever filed. The transcript appearing in this record was certified by the clerk of the court below at a date later than that of the affidavit attached to appellant’s motion.

Finding no merit in either appellant’s motion for rehearing or his application for cer-tiorari, both will be denied. 
      @=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     