
    CONNELL v. STATE.
    (No. 6186.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 30, 1921.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;!063(l), 1090(1)— Neither motion for new trial, statement of facts nor bill of exceptions necessary to appeal.
    Neither motion for new trial, statement of facts, nor bills of exceptions are necessary to give jurisdiction of appeal from conviction for robbery.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 144(1/}, 13) — Presumptions favor trial court’s rulings and sufficiency of evidence.
    In tbe absence of a statement of facts, tbe Court of Criminal Appeals assumes that tbe judgment is based on sufficient evidence, and, in the absence of bills of exceptions, that the trial court correctly ruled on questions of practice.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; George E. Hosey, Judge.
    Annie Bell Connell was convicted of robbery, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. L. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Conviction is for robbery; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled. Neither motion for new trial, statement of facts, nor bills of exceptions is necessary to give jurisdiction of the appeal. Sessions v. State, 81 Tex. Or. R. 425, 197 S. W. 718, and authorities therein cited.

We discern no defects in the indictment. In the absence of the statement of facts, we assume that the judgment is based upon sufficient evidence, and, in the absence of bills of exceptions, that the court correctly ruled upon questions of practice.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      .©assFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Ksy-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     