The opinion
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant seriously challenges our consideration of a statement of facts on stipulations filed in this Court on June 18, which was after the expiration of 90 days from the giving of notice of appeal. The original statement of facts contains the announcement that “the following evidence was adduced and proceedings had in connection therewith” and concludes with the certificate, “The above and foregoing, having been examined and found correct * * * ” as signed by the trial court was filed in this Court on May 14. The statement of facts filed on June 18, prior to the submission of this cause originally, contains the announcement that “the following stipulation was entered into and proceedings had in connection therewith;” concludes “thereupon, jury panel brought into courtroom for voir dire examination” and is approved by the trial court.
From this it is apparent that the original statement of facts did not contain all of that which occurred at appellant’s trial and the trial court cured this omission by sending this Court a statement of facts of that which occurred, but was omitted from the original statement of facts.
Appellant is in no position to challenge our consideration of the second statement of facts because it contains a stipulation entered into by his counsel at the trial and in which he personally joined. In argument appellant’s counsel on appeal does not challenge the validity of the stipulation, but he merely questions our consideration thereof. The majority have concluded that, though the Legislature has not by the amendment of Article 759a V.A. C.C.P. placed a time limit on the approval of statements of facts by the trial court, in order to effectively terminate litigation before this Court we will consider only those statements of facts which are filed with the clerk of the trial court, approved by the trial court and filed in this Court prior to original submission on our docket. See Selvidge v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 140 , 345 S.W.2d 523 ; Cunningham v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 3 , 353 S.W.2d 37 ; Clayton v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 595 , 361 S.W.2d 385 ; Doby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 363 S.W.2d 286 ; Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 306 ; and Ex Parte Seffens, Tex.Cr.App., 376 S.W.2d 348 .
Remaining convinced that we properly decided this case originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.