
    MITCHELL v. STATE.
    (No. 7817.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 6, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied June 27, 1923.)
    Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge. Roy Mitchell was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the district court of McLennan county of murder, and Ms punishment fixed at death.. The facts revealed by the record are unfit to appear on the printed pages of the records of this court. According to the confession of the appellant made without suggestion of improper influence, taken in accordance with the forms of the. law, he shot and killed a man whom he had never seen before the night of the killing, ravished' and shot and killed a woman companion of said man, robbed the dead body of the man, tied it on behind a car and dragged it over the ground, beat the bodies of his victims over the head, with a gun barrel, and deliberately took what seemed to him all necessary steps to remove evidences of his crime and to secure himself from suspicion and detection. The details of the transaction will be no further set forth. The record is devoid of any exception to the charge of the court or to anything that transpired during the trial. The gravity of the punishment inflicted- has caused us to scrutinize carefully the record, to see if it be at all' likely that anything has been done during the trial that would affect its fairness. We see no lack of fairness on the trial. The charge of the court was full and explicit. The testimony was overwhelming. The jury have exercised the discretion confided in them in the administration of punishment. The judgment will be affirmed;

On Motion for Rehearing.

The clerk of this court has received from appellant herein two letters expressing the purpbse of filing a motion for* rehearing, in which letters appear the objections of appellant to matters connected with his trial, but notwithstanding the time fixed by statute for filing such motion has' expired, no one has appeared and no motion has been filed. We have examined said letters carefully feeling 'that however informal they might be in their presentation, inasmuch as this 'appellant has 'been given the extreme penalty of the law, this court should be as careful as possible to accord to him every right and opportunity given him by the law. Nothing appearing upon which this court can act, and the time for filing the regular and formal motion for rehearing having expired, the application, if such these letters might he considered, for rehearing will he overruled.  