Opinion
No. 10001.
Delivered March 17, 1926. Rehearing denied October 20, 1926.
1. — Same — Argument of Counsel — No Error Shown.
Where the appellant had plead guilty, and no statement of facts appears in the record, appellant's complaint of argument of counsel cannot be appraised. This court, unless the contrary is made to appear in the record, accords to the action of the trial court regularity, and that all proceedings had upon the trial were in all things legal.
ON REHEARING.2. — Same — Bill of Exception — Must Be Approved.
On rehearing, appellant complains of our failure to consider his bill of exception appearing in the record. An inspection of his bill discloses that same was not approved by the trial judge. This court cannot consider bills of exception unless they are approved and signed by the trial court.
Appeal from the District Court of Hopkins County. Tried below before the Hon. J. M. Melson, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction for transporting intoxicating liquor, penalty two years in the penitentiary.
Ramey Davidson of Sulphur Springs, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State's Attorney, and Robert M. Lyles, Assistant State's Attorney, for the State.
Conviction in District Court of Hopkins County of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor, punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
Appellant pleaded guilty. In such cases the statute requires that evidence shall be introduced. While there is no statement of facts in the case, we must presume the regularity of the procedure in the absence of a showing to the contrary. The only complaint is of argument of the District Attorney. Nothing in the bill of exceptions makes evident to us the fact that there was no testimony before the court to which the argument could be related. In the absence of some such showing in the bill we are compelled to accord to the action of the learned trial court regularity, and that in his opinion the argument was pertinent and proper and called for by the evidence.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant earnestly insists that we erred in refusing to consider a bill of exceptions appearing in the record, which he claims manifests error even in the absence of a statement of facts. Inspection of said bill, which appears to be the only one in the record, shows that the court refused to approve said bill. We are not at liberty to consider the proposition urged by appellant, when presented in a bill under these circumstances.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.
Overruled.