
    FREEMAN v. STATE.
    (No. 4381.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 7, 1917.)
    1. Criminal Law <&wkey;1184 — Appeal—Judgment — Amendment—Conpormitt to Verdict.
    In prosecution under indictment in two counts charging assault with intent to murder and assault to commit robbery where the jury applied the verdict to the first count, a judgment, applying the verdict to the second count, will be amended.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3199, 3200.]
    2. Criminal Law i&wkey;1099(6) — Appeal—Bills op Exception — Time to File.
    Bills of exception filed 80 days after pronouncement of sentence are too late and cannot be considered on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2877.]
    3. Homicide <&wkey;257(l) — Assault with Intent to Murder — Evidence—Suppicienct.
    Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of assault with intent to murder.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 543, 544, 552.]
    Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; E. W. Nicholson, Judge.
    Ray Freeman was convicted of an offense, and appeals.
    Amended and affirmed.
    E. L. Fulton, of Wichita Falls, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. .
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

The indictment contains two counts, the first charging an assault with intent to murder, and the second charging an assault to commit robbery. The verdict was applied by the jury to the first count. The judgment on the verdict, as shown by the minptes, applied the verdict to the second count, which was wrong. The judgment will be amended so as to apply to the first count. The final judgment shows the court sentenced defendant for assault to murder and rob. That will be amended so as to conform the sentence to the verdict and judgment as amended.

There are two bills of exception in the record, neither of which can be considered. The court lasted over eight weeks; the sentence was pronounced on the 11th day of November. This required the filing of the bills of exception within 30 days from the final sentence, without an order extending the time. This was not done, and the bills of exception were not filed until in February, something like 80 days after the pronouncement of sentence. Under the decisions this comes too late, and the bills of exception cannot be considered. The. motion of the Assistant Attorney General to strike the bills from the record will be sustained.

This leaves but one question, to wit, the sufficiency of the evidence, to be considered. The state’s case shows that appellant made an assault upon the alleged injured party and shot him twice. There is evidence enough to have convicted, perhaps, under either count of the indictment, but the jury confined their verdict to the first count, assault to murder. Appellant assaulted the injured party at night. He came upon him, caught him by the hand, and made demands upon him, and Norris undertook to get away from him and was shot twice at close range. We think the evidence is sufficient to justify the verdict, and the judgment will be affirmed.  