
    MONTALVO v. STATE.
    (No. 9422.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 6, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;l 111 (I) — Trial judge’s ex- ' planation of failure to charge on manslaughter binding, in absence of statement of facts or bills of exception.
    In absence of statement of facts or bills of exception, satisfactory explanation by trial judge of failure to charge on manslaughter is binding on appellate court.
    2. Habeas oorpus <&wkey;H3(9) — Record in proceedings questioning juror’s qualification not considered in absence of certificate by trial judge.
    In absence of certificate by trial judge, record of habeas corpus proceedings, raising question of juror’s disqualification after adjournment of term at which conviction occurred, cannot be considered, under Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 950.
    3.. Criminal law &wkey;>!035(5) — Habeas corpus <&wkey;3 — Juror’s qualification cannot be questioned for first time after conviction.
    Question of juror’s disqualification cannot be raised for first time by habeas corpus proceeding after conviction, and, even if presented on regular appeal, disqualification not raised before conviction, will not ordinarily vitiate verdict.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Wil-lacy County; A. W. Cunningham, Judge.
    Salvador Montalvo was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Wells & Galbraith, of Brownsville, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, ,T.

Conviction is for the murder of Remigio Garza. Punishment, 20 years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. An objection was lodged to the charge because it omitted any instruction on the issue of manslaughter. Without knowing what facts were proven, we are unable to appraise this objection. The explanation of the learned trial judge why he did not charge on “manslaughter” is satisfactory, and will bind this court in the absence of a showing that his reasons are unsupported by the facts.

After adjournment of the term of court at which the conviction occurred, defendant undertook to raise by habeas corpus proceedings the question of a juror’s disqualification. The record on that proceeding is before us without any certificate thereto by the trial judge, and therefore may not be considered. Article 950, C. C. P.; Ex parte Lozano, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 112, 225 S. W. 59. The appeal from the order refusing the writ of habeas corpus is ordered dismissed. See cases collated under section 243, Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. This is a matter which cannot be raised for the first time by habeas corpus proceeding after conviction, and even if presented on regular appeal, if the point was not raised until after conviction, it seems to be settled that it will not ordinarily vitiate the verdict. Authorities under section 550 and 551, Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., and note 53, p. 381, Vernon’s Crim. Stat. vol. 2.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. 
      @m»For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     