Case ID: tex-crim_37/html/0130-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C. A. McMeans et al. v. The State.
    
      No. 1151.
    
    
      Decided February 10th, 1897.
    
    1. Local Option—Recognizance.
    Where the recognizance on appeal from a conviction for a violation, of local option recites, that the appellants stand charged with the offense of “unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in a prohibition district.” Held, it does not recite any offense.
    2. Same—Recognizance Must be Separate for Joint Defendants.
    Where two or more parties are jointly indicted and tried, the recognizance upon appeal from their conviction must not be a joint one. Each party must enter into a separate recognizance.
    Appeal from the County Court of Hood. Tried below before Hon. George W. Riddle, County Judge.
    This appeal is from a conviction for violation of local option, appellants having been jointly indicted and jointly tried; penalty, a fine of $25 and twenty days’ imprisonment in the county jail against each of the defendants.
    They attempt to prosecute this appeal by a joint recognizance.
    .The Assistant Attorney-General moves to dismiss the appeal, because, 1st. It recites no offense. 2d. Because it is a joint recognizance.
    No brief for appellant.
    
      Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellants were jointly indicted for a violation of the local option law. convicted, and appeal. The Assistant Attomey-General, upon two grounds, moves a dismissal of the appeal: First, that the recognizance is insufficient in not reciting the offense charged against appellants, and in not reciting any offense; and, second, because the recognizance on appeal is a joint undertaking by the appellants, and not separate, as it should be. The recognizance recites that the appellants stand charged with the offense of “unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors in a prohibition district.” This allegation does not recite the offense charged in the information. In fact, it recites no offense at all. We further find that the recognizance is a joint obligation. This renders it fatally defective. Where two or more parties are jointly indicted in misdemeanor cases, and each appeals from a conviction, each appellant must enter into a separate recognizance. A joint recognizance, as in this case, will not suffice. The motion is well taken, and the appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.