Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JOE HENRY DONLEY v. STATE (12/11/57)

decided: December 11, 1957.

JOE HENRY DONLEY
v.
STATE



Perjury. Appeal from district court of Travis County; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for ten years. Hon. Chas. O. Betts, Judge Presiding.

COUNSEL

Perry L. Jones, and M. N. Garcia, Austin, for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State's Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Belcher, Judge.

Author: Belcher

[ 165 Tex. Crim. Page 650]

    The conviction is for perjury; the punishment, ten years in the penitentiary. The statement of facts accompanying the record was filed in the trial court and bears the approval of the attorneys for the state. Neither the appellant nor his counsel, nor the trial court has approved the statement of facts.

Art. 759a, Vernon's Ann. C.C.P., provides that a statement of facts must be agreed to by the appellant or his counsel and the attorney representing the state or approved by the trial judge in order to be considered by this court on appeal. Baird v. State, 162 Tex. Crim. 589, 288 S.W.2d 67; Hubert v. State, 164 Tex. Crim. 372, 299 S.W.2d 293.

The record contains several formal bills of exception.

These bills within themselves do not show error because they do not disclose all that is necessary to support the claimed error therein. 4 Texas Juris., p. 295, Sec. 207; 1 Branch, 2d Ed. p. 262, Sec. 229; Hyman v. State, 157 Tex. Crim. 434, 249 S.W.2d 224. Apparently the appellant recognizes the insufficiency of

[ 165 Tex. Crim. Page 651]

    his formal bills to show error because in his brief he presents each claimed error by referring to both his formal and informal bill. Under this record, and in the absence of a statement of facts which can be considered, we are not in position to pass upon questions pertaining to the court's charge, admissibility of evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence. Williams v. State, 164 Tex. Crim. 138, 297 S.W.2d 169.

The indictment, as well as all other matters of procedure, appears regular; therefore, nothing is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.