
    DIXON v. STATE.
    (No. 3711.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 20, 1915.)
    1. Criminal Law <&wkey;1097 — AppeaXt-Statement of Pacts.
    Without statement of facts, the grounds of a motion for new trial relating to the insufficiency of the evidence, to the improper conduct of counsel, and to the erroneous admission of evidence, cannot he reviewed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. &wkey;1097.]
    2. Criminal Law <&wkey;>1184 — Trial—Sentence —Indeterminate Sentence.
    Where, contrary to the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Acts 33d Leg. c. 132, amended by Acts 33d Leg. [Ex. Sess.] c. 5), accused was sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment, the judgment will be reformed so as to comply with the law, and affirmed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law,Cent. Dig. §§ 3199, 3200; Dec. Dig. <5&wkey;
    Appeal from District Court, Atascosa County; F. G. Chambliss, Judge.
    J. W. Dixon was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
    Reformed and affirmed.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of rape, his punishment being assessed at 25 years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Neither any bill of exceptions nor a statement of facts is incorporated in the record. The only ground of the ’motion for new trial relates to matters that cannot be considered in the absence of a statement of facts. The first ground in the motion is that the state was permitted to prove that the alleged ravished woman was of weak mind, there being no allegation in the indictment that she was a woman of weak intellect. The second ground of the motion is that, while the defendant was on the witness stand testifying in his own behalf, the district attorney, in a loud and angry tone of voice, called the defendant a liar. There is another ground, that the evidence is insufficient. There is nothing in the record to verify these statements, and therefore they cannot be considered. The court, in passing sentence, however, failed to recognize the statute with reference to the indeterminate sentence; the sentence being for 25 years. The judgment will be reformed so as to conform to the indeterminate sentence statute, and made to read that the punishment shall not be more than 25 nor less than 5 years.

The judgment is reformed and affirmed.  