
    (85 Tex. Cr. R. 28)
    WHITE v. STATE.
    (No. 5267.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 5, 1919.
    On Motion for Rehearing, March 12, 1919.) '
    1. Criminal Law <§=>1092(8), 1099(7) — Appeal — Time for Filing Statement of Facts and Bill of Exceptions.
    Where, on conviction for violating the local option law, the court adjourned July 20, 1918, after granting defendant 60-days from adjournment in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception, and before the expiration of such time granted an additional 30 days, a statement of fact and bills of exception filed October 19, 1918, were not within the 90-day period, and will not be considered.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal Law <§=>1181 — Power of Appellate Court to Determine Commencement of Sentence.
    The Court of Criminal Appeals has no power to direct that the day of sentence and term of imprisonment begin on the date of a defendant’s conviction below.
    Appeal from District Court, Montague County; John Speer, Judge.
    Ernest White was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed, and rehearing denied.
    Ernest White, in pro. per.
    E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

In this case appellant was convicted for violating the local option law in Montague county, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The Assistant Attorney General has made a motion to strike from the record the statement of facts and bills of exception of appellant for the reason that same are not filed in time. The record shows that the court adjourned on July 20, 1918, after entering an order granting to appellant 60 days from such adjournment in which to file statement of facts and bills of exception. Before the end of this 60-day period the court made an order further extending said time for filing, for an additional 30 days. The statement of facts and bills of exception were not filed until October 19, 1918, and this 'was clearly not within the 90-day period allowed by the court, and the motion of the state must be sustained.

An additional objection to the statement of facts is that same was not approved by the trial judge. The indictment and charge of the court, together with the remaining portions of the record, show no error which we can consider, in the absence of the statement of facts and bills of exception.

The judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

This case comes before the court upon motion for rehearing filed by the appellant In propria persona in which he complains that upon a former hearing he was without representation either in person or by attorney, and that the court erred in not acting upon the fundamental error apparent of record in this case.

The court fully considered all of the errors presented, and as none are pointed out in this motion for rehearing we are unable to say wherein any error was committed in the former judgment of this court.

This court has no power to grant to appellant the relief prayed for, to wit, by directing that the day of his sentence and the term of his imprisonment begin on the date of his conviction in the court below.

There being no errors shown by the motion for rehearing, the motion will be accordingly overruled. 
      <®=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numberea Digests and Indexes
     