Case ID: tex-crim_47/html/0148-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON,, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bart Davis v. The State.
    No. 2999.
    Decided October 12, 1904.
    Recognizance—Must Allege Misdemeanor.
    Where the recognizance failed to allege that the appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, or stated facts which show that the conviction was for' a misdemeanor, but alleged that appellant had been convicted in this cause for unlawfully carrying a pistol, the appeal was dismissed.
    Appeal from the County Court of Nacogdoches. Tried below before Hon. Bobert Berger.
    Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying about his person a pistol; penalty, a fine of $25.
    No statement necessary.
    No brief for appellant.
    
      Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   DAVIDSON,, Presiding Judge.

The recognizance found in the record fails to allege that appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor or state facts which show conviction was obtained of a disdemeanor. The allegation is, that appellant “has been convicted in this cause of unlawfully carrying a pistol.” This is not sufficient. In order to charge an offense for violating the pistol law, it is necessary to allege one of the grounds that constitutes it's illegality, as carrying it on his person, about his person, etc. Unlawfully “carrying a pistol” is not an offense against the laws of the state. It must be unlawfully carried on or about his person, etc. Because the recognizance does not recite that appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, the motion is sustained. The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.