
    MIRELES v. STATE.
    (No. 8508.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 26, 1924.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;1092(9) — Order extending time for filing bill of exceptions held ultra vires, as too late.
    Order extending time for filing bill of exceptions, being entered after expiration of the time allowed by law or theretofore fixed by an order of extension, is ultra vires; and bill of exceptions filed accordingly is too late, and may not be considered.
    Appeal from District Court, San Patricio County; T. M. Cox, Judge.
    Frederico Míreles was convicted of violating the liquor law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of San Patricio county of transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at .two years in the penitentiary.

• The state objects to our consideration of appellant’s bills of' exception upon the ground that same were filed too late. The court overruled appellant’s motion for new triaj on October 22, 1923, and in its overruling order granted the accused 60 days in which to file bills of exception. . A slight mathematical calculation shows the time granted by this order would expire on December 21st. On December 10, 1923, appellant asked and obtained an order of the court below extending tiie time for filing bills of exception an additional 20 days from tlie 21st of December. This period of extension would expire on January 11, 1024. 'We find in the record an application filed by the accused on January 14, 1924, requesting additional time, and the learned trial judge then entered an order extending the time for filing such bills of exception 10 days.

The uniform holding of this court is that an order of extension which is entered after the expiration of the time allowed by law, or theretofore fixed by an order of the court for filing bills of exception and statement of facts, will be ultra vires. We regret we cannot consider the bills of exception because filed too late.

There is a statement of facts, and on examination it seems to amply support the conclusion that appellant is guilty of the transportation of intoxicating liquor as charged in the indictment and found by the jury. A recitation of the facts is not deemed necessary.

The judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.  