
    WILSON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 25, 1913.)
    Criminal Law (§ 1097) — Appeal — Statement op Facts — Necessity.
    Defendant was convicted of forgery upon his confession, and thereafter a new trial was sought on the ground that he was mentally unsound; supporting affidavits being attached to the motion and evidence heard. Held, that the action of the court in overruling the motion could not be reviewed, where the evidence heard was. not presented by statement of facts; the affidavits attached to the motion not being considered as evidence, unless introduced as such when the motion is heard.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934. 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097.]
    Appeal from District Court, Cass County; H. F. O’Neal, Judge.
    Andrew Wilson was convicted of forgery upon his confession, and from an order denying his motion for new trial, he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    G. T. Bartlett and H. A. O’Neal, both of Linden, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was, prosecuted, charged with forgery. He entered a plea of guilty, after being admonished by the court, as provided by law, as to the consequences of said plea, and his punishment was assessed by the jury at two years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

A motion for new trial was filed, in which it was alleged that appellant was of unsound mind at the time he entered the plea of guilty, and some supporting affidavits are attached to the motion. It appears by the order of the court that evidence was heard on this issue, and the court overruled the motion. This evidence is not contained in the record before us, and, of course, we cannot pass on the question. After the adjournment of court, appellant filed a request that the time be extended in which to file this bill. Time was granted, and yet no bill containing the evidence has been prepared and filed — at least, none appears in the record. The motion was but a pleading in the case, and in and of itself proves no fact, and the affidavits attached thereto cannot be considered as evidence, unless introduced as evidence when the motion is heard. This being the condition of the record, there is no question presented to us for review.

The judgment is affirmed.  