Opinion
No. 7304.
Decided December 13, 1922.
Attempt to Commit Burglary — Statement of Facts — Questions and Answers.
A statement of facts in question and answer form is not a statement of facts within Article 844c, C.C.P., and cannot be considered on appeal. Following King v. State, 82 Texas Crim, Rep., 145, and other cases, and the indictment appearing regular, everything must be indulged in favor of the regularity of the judgment in the absence of bills of exception.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried below before the Honorable C.W. Robinson.
Appeal from a conviction of an attempt to commit burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
No brief on file for appellant.
R.G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State. — Cited: Jetty v. State, 235 S.W. Rep., 589; Rylee v. State, 236 S.W. Rep., 744; Huey v. State, 235 id., 887.
Appellant was convicted for attempt to commit the offense of burglary, his punishment being assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years.
The record before us is without any bills of exception and the State has filed a motion to strike from the record the statement of facts because it consists entirely of questions and answers. A statement of facts in question and answer form is not a statement of facts within Article 844c, C.C.P. and cannot be considered on appeal. King v. State, 82 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 198 S.W. Rep., 782; Kitchens v. State, 83 Tex.Crim. Rep., 203 S.W. Rep., 768; Ferguson v. State, 83 Tex.Crim. Rep., 202 S.W. Rep., 733; Roberts v. State, 83 Tex.Crim. Rep., 204 S.W. Rep., 866; Thomas v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. Rep., 210 S.W. Rep., 201; Emberline v. State, 85 Tex.Crim. Rep., 212 S.W. Rep., 952.
The indictment appears to be regular. The statement of facts being in such condition that it may not be considered, and there being no bills of exception in the record, everything must be indulged in favor of the regularity of the judgment, and the same will be affirmed.
Affirmed.