
    CADENA v. STATE.
    (No. 11757.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 9, 1928.
    1.Criminal law <S=»I056(I) — Requested charges refused cannot be- reviewed on appeal, where no exceptions were reserved to"refusal.
    Where no exceptions were reserved to refusal of requested charges, Court of Criminal Appeals cannot review requests.
    2. .Criminal law <§=>l 122(3) — Without evidence, refused requested charges could not be considered, though properly presented on appeal.
    Requested charges refused, though properly presented on appeal, could not be considered by Court of Criminal Appeals in absence of evidence.
    3. Homicide <§=a>32 — Conviction for manslaughter prior to taking effect of act abolishing offense and containing saving clause for prior offenses could not be set aside, though judgment did not become final until after act took .effect (Acts 40th Leg. Sp. Sess. [1927] c. 8, amending Acts 40th Leg. [1927] c. 274).
    Under Acts 40th Leg. Sp. Sess. (1927) c. 8, amending Acts 40th Leg. (1927) c. 274, by providing that no offense committed prior to taking effect of act should be affected thereby, but that offender should be proceeded against under law existing theretofore, defendant convicted of manslaughter prior to act abolishing crime was not entitled to' have conviction set aside, though judgment of conviction did not become final until after act went into effect.
    Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; W. S. Anderson, Judge.
    Joaquin Cadena was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Chambers, of San Antonio, and E. A. Camp, of Rockdale, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Upon trial under indictment for murder, appellant was convicted of manslaughter and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts nor bills of exception are found in the record.

A number of requested charges which were refused are brought forward in the transcript. No exceptions were reserved to their refusal without which this court cannot review them. Linder v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 316, 260 S. W. 703. Even if the point was properly presented, this court would be in no position to appraise the pertinency of the reguested charges in the absence of the evidence.

The indictment was returned on the 1st day of March, 1927, alleging the offense to have been committed on the 23d day of February, 1927. Appellant was tried and convicted on the 10th day of June. By motion in arrest of judgment appellant insists that the act of the 40th Legislature (chapter 274, page 412), abolished the offense of manslaughter, and that although said amended law did not go into effect until the 22d day of June, it did become operative before the judgment against appellant became final, and there now being no offense of manslaughter this conviction must be set aside. The Special Session of the 40th Legislature (chapter 8, page 18) amended the act of the Regular Session and incorporated therein a saving clause providing that no offense committed prior to the fating effect of chapter 274 of the Regular Session should be affected thereby, but that the offender should be proceeded against under the law as it had existed theretofore. The opinions of this court in O’Pry v. State, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 661, 298 S. W. 596, and Flores v. State, 4 S.W.(2d) 43, construing the law in .question, have decided the point against appellant’s contention.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      «gaaFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     