Case ID: sw_230/html/0160-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMAS v. STATE.
    (No. 6149.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 9, 1921.
    Rehearing Granted April 6, 1921.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;1086(13) — Sentence essential to jurisdiction on appeal.
    Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 856,- the sentence as shown by the • record is the final judgment in a criminal case, and is essential to give jurisdiction to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;507( I) — Purchaser of whis-ky and one participating in purchase held “accomplices.”
    On a trial for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, the purchaser of the liquor and one who furnished the money, participated in hiring an automobile to go for the liquor, and went with the purchaser to a point near defendant’s residence, and jointly with the purchaser took charge of and used the whisky, were “accomplices” as a matter of law.
    [Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Accomplice.]
    Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    James Thomas was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
    Wynne & Wynne, of Kaufman, for appellant.
    O. M. Cureton, Atty. Gen., and C. L. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

Appellant is convicted for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. Punishment is fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

There is no sentence in the record. The sentence is the final judgment, and is essential to give jurisdiction to this court. See article 856, Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

The order of dismissal heretofore made is Bet aside and the appeal reinstated.

The conviction is for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors to Tom Scott. All of the incriminating facts come from the testimony of Tom Scott and his companion, Shannon, both of whom, we think, were accomplices, as a matter of law. They were taken to a point near the residence of appellant in an automobile belonging to Johnson. Their purpose was to buy whisky from the appellant. They got out of the automobile, Scott went to the house of the appellant, and Shannon stopped at a point nearby. Shannon furnished the money, and, when Scott brought the whisky to a point where Shannon stood, they both took charge of and used it. There was testimony that they both participated in hiring the automobile.

The companion case, No. 6150, 230 S. W. 159, is reversed because of the insufficiency of the evidence. The same result must attend this one. See Franklin v. State, 227 S. W. 486, 487.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      <&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes