
    MAGUSON v. STATE.
    (No. 12823.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 27, 1929.
    Reynold M. Gardner, of Amarillo, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for burglary, punishment being five years in_ the penitentiary.

The state has filed a motion to strike out the statement of facts and bills of exception 'because none of them were filed within the time fixed by the statute. No order was made by the court extending the time of filing. The motion for new trial was overruled on March 26, 1929. The 90 days allowed by law (article 760, C. C. P.) for filing statement of facts, expired on June 24, 1929. The statement of facts was filed in the trial court on May 14, 1929, which was well within the 90-day period. The fact that it was not filed in this court until June 26, after the expiration of the 90 days, would not control. The filing in this court was a matter over which appellant had no control. This entitles the statement of facts to consideration. However, we find that the bills of exception cannot be considered. They were also filed in the trial court on May 14th. The terra of court began on January 28, 1929, and could by law continue more than 8 weeks. Subdivision 5 of. article 760, C. C. P. provides that, if the term of court may by law continue more than 8 weeks, bills of exception shall be filed within 30 days from final judgment, unless the time is extended by order of the court. The bills of exception were not filed until more than 30 days had elapsed from overruling the motion for new trial and passing sentence. Chisholm v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 401, 1 S.W.(2d) 613; Picarino v. State, 110 Tex. Cr. R. 120, 8 S.W.(2d) 142; Tillar v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 410, 13 S.W.(2d) 368; McCloude v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 10 S.W.(2d) 85.

We have examined the facts, and they seem sufficient to support the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.  