
    Olen Gossett v. The State.
    No. 8587.
    Decided May 28, 1924.
    Rehearing denied June 25, 1924.
    Assault with a Prohibited Weapon — Appeal for Purpose of Delay.
    Where, upon appeal from a conviction of an assault with a prohibited weapon, the record showed that the appellant pleaded guilty, and appellant thereafter contended that he desired to appeal the case, and that ne had filed a statement of facts, but it appeared that he had not used proper diligence, and that the purpose of the appeal was delay, the judgment below is affirmed and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Williamson. Tried below before the Honorable James E. Hamilton.
    Appeal from a conviction of assault with a prohibited weapon; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Olen Gossett, in person, for appellant.
    
      Tom Garrard, Attorney for the State, and Grover G. Morris, Assistant Attorney for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Williamson County of an assault with a prohibited weapon, and his punishment fixed at confinement in.the penitentiary for a period of one year.

The appellant pleaded guilty. The judgment of the court recites the usual facts attendant upon a plea of guilty. The motion for new trial only complains of the court’s refusal to instruct a verdict of not guilty and of the fact that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the law and the evidence.

Finding no error in the record, an affirmance will be ordered.

Affirmed.

on rehearing.

June 25, 1924.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing setting up that he wanted to appeal this case and was allowed thirty days after the adjournment of the trial term of the court below in which to file statement of facts. He avers in the motion that the trial term ended on February 3d, and that thereafter a statement of facts was duly prepared and delivered to his attorney and that during the thirty day period mentioned said attorney became ill and that by reason of this, said statement of facts was not filed during the time allowed. Appellant was represented on his trial by more than one attorney. The mere filing of a statement of facts could have been done on behalf of appellant by anyone of the attorneys representing him. There was a plea of guilty in the court below, and it appears to this court that the appeal was merely for purpose of delay.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Overruled.  