Case ID: sw_146/html/0171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AYERS et al. v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 17, 1912.)
    1. Bail (§ 94) — In Criminal Prosecutions —Forfeiture—Apfeai>-Notice.
    Notice by sureties on a bail bond of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals from a judgment forfeiting the bond confers no jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeals.
    [Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. §§ 418-423; Dec. Dig. § 94.]
    
      2. Bail (§ 94) — In Criminal Prosecutions —Forfeiture—Appeal—Time for Filing Transcript.
    ' Under Code Or. Proc. arts. 961, 962, which .authorizes review of judgments on bail bonds on writs of error as in civil suits, and under the rule of the Supreme Court for the government of the Courts of Civil Appeals, which prohibits consideration of a case where the transcript is not filed within 90 days from the filing of the petition for writ of error, and no showing is made why the same was not forwarded within that time, a writ of error to review a judgment forfeiting a bail bond will be dismissed, where the transcript was not fil•ed within that time.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. §§ 418-423; Dec. Dig. § 94.)
    Appeal from District Court, Kent County; ■Cullen C. Higgins, Judge.
    W. H. Stricklin’s bail bond having been forfeited, \V. W. Ayers and another, as sureties, bring error from the judgment of forfeiture, and the State moves to dismiss the writ.
    Motion sustained, and writ dismissed.
    W. W. Hamilton, of Snyder, for appellants. 'O. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

In this case the district ■court of Kent county, at the April term in 1910, forfeited the bail bond of W. H. Strick-lin, with W. W. Ayers and J. N. Shepherd as ■sureties thereon, and at the 'October term the nisi judgment was made final. To the .judgment of the court the defendants Ayers ■and Shepherd in open court excepted, and gave notice of appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals of the Second Supreme Judicial District at Ft. Worth. This notice, being .given to the Court of Civil Appeals, conferred no jurisdiction on this court. Thomas & Dockery v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 246, 119 S. W. 846.

October 10, 1911, defendants Ayers and Shepherd filed in the district court of Kent •county a petition for writ of error, reciting that notice of appeal was given to the Court ■of Civil Appeals, but in the petition thus filed stated they desired to remove said judgment to this court for revision, and filed a bond with the clerk of the district court conditioned as required by law. The transcript in said cause was not filed in this court within 90 days from the date of filing the petition in the district court, and, while article .961 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that such judgments may be revised upon writ of error as in civil suits, yet article 962 provides that the proceedings shall be regulated by the same rules that govern in civil actions where a writ of error is sued out, and under the rules adopted by the Supreme Court for the government of the Courts of Civil Appeals, where a transcript is not received within 90 days, and no showing made why same was not forwarded within that time, the case cannot be considered by this court. In fact, none of the rules prescribed by the Supreme Court for the government of appeals or writs of error have been complied with. No brief was filed in the court below, as shown by this record, and it is in such condition that under the rules and the decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court the cause must be dismissed. Hollenback v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 584, 51 S. W. 373; Carleton v. State, 68 S. W. 511.

Motion of Assistant Attorney General is sustained, and the writ of error is dismissed.