
    McCLELLAND v. STATE.
    (No. 9769.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 21, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <§=>1099(6)— Statement of facts, filed after expiration of time for filing same, need not be considered on appeal.
    Statement of facts, filed after time had elapsed for filing same, need not.be considered on appeal, in absence of excuse shown in record.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law <@=>1086(14) — Appellate court will not consider refused charges, where no showing as to when they were presented.
    Under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 659 (Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 737), appellate court is hot authorized to consider refused charges, where there is nothing in charges showing when they were presented to court, whether before or after reading of general charge to jury.
    3. Criminal law <@=>1182 — In absence of bills of exception, objections to court’s charge, or error found, judgment will be affirmed.
    Where there are no bills of exception in record, nor objections to court’s charge, and no error is found in trial of case, judgment will be affirmed.
    Appeal from District Court, Victoria County ; John M. Green; Judge.
    R. H. McClelland was convicted of unlawfully aiding a prisoner to escape from the custody of an officer and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      I. -D. Fowler, of Victoria, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of Victoria county of unlawfully aiding a prisoner to escape from custody of an officer, and his punishment assessed at 2 years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without any bills of exception. It appears that the term of the district court in which the appellant was convicted adjourned on the 28th day of May, 1925, and he was allowed 90 days within which to prepare and file a statement of facts. There appears what purports to be a statement of facts filed in the district court of said county on October 12, 1925, about 44 days after the time had elapsed for filing same. There is no sufficient excuse or reason shown in the record which would authorize this court to consider a statement of facts filed after the time had expired allowed by law, and, under the statutes and the decisions of this court, we are precluded from considering the same. Hart v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 653, 218 S. W. 1054; Carpenter v. State, 83 Tex. Cr. R. 87, 201 S. W. 996; Vastine v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 214, 206 S. W. 191.

The indictment and charge of the court being regular, and there being no error of record shown, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

On Motion for Rehearing.

At a former day of this term we refused to consider the statement of facts in this case because same was not filed within the time fixed by law. Under the showing made on motion for rehearing, we have decided now to consider same.

Appellant complains of the refusal of the court to give to the jury his special charges 1 and 2. There is nothing in either of said charges showing when same were presented to the court,‘whether before or after the court read his general charge to the jury as required ¡ffiy the statutes governing such matters, and for that reason we are unauthorized to consider same. Article 659, O. O. P. Penal Code 1925; article 737, Vernon’s C. C. P.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record, nor objections to the court’s charge, and, failing to find any error in the trial of this case, the motion for rehearing is refused, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court. 
      <gs?>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     