Case ID: sw_219/html/1097-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HALE v. STATE.
    (No. 5709.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 17, 1920.)
    Bail <&wkey;70 — Appeal dismissed where appeal BOND PILED DURING TERM, BUT NO RECOGNIZANCE EXECUTED.
    Where defendant after conviction of felony and before expiration of the term gave an appeal bond which was approved by the sheriff and also by the district judge, the appeal must be dismissed, the appeal bond being without legal efficacy, and defendant having failed to enter into a recognizance under terms of statute allowing one convicted of felony to either enter into a recognizance at term at which conviction was had or after judgment execute an appeal bond.
    Appeal from District Court, Liberty County; D. P. Singleton, Judge.
    Clay Hale was convicted of felony, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss tMs appeal because of the fact appellant did not enter into a recognizance during term time, but gave an appeal bond. Where an appeal is prosecuted in a felony case, the accused may enter into a recognizance during the term at which the conviction was had, and, failing in this, he may, after the adjournment of court, in vacation, enter into an appeal bond under the terms prescribed by the statute. Appellant did not enter into a recognizance during term time, but before the court adjourned did give an appeal bond, which was taken by the sheriff and approved by both the sheriff and district judge. Court adjourned on the 13th day of December, 1919. The appeal bond was entered into on the 5th day of December, 1919, eight days before the adjournment of court. It was on that day approved by the sheriff, and on the 8th of December approved by the district judge. This appeal bond, then, is without legal efficacy. This question has been passed on in a number of cases, among others two eases styled Taylor v. State, found in 80 Tex. Cr. R. 132, 133, 189 S. W. 141.

We are of opinion that the motion of the Assistant Attorney General is well taken and should be sustained.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.