Case ID: sw_150/html/0775-01.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

HAMILTON v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 30, 1912.)
    Ball (§ 64) — Recognizance—Time.
    Under Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 918, providing that, if one convicted of a misdemeanor be not in custody, his notice of appeal shall have no effect whatever until he enter into a recognizance, the court of Criminal Apeáis has no jurisdiction of a misdemeanor appeal, where accused did not enter into a recognizance during the term, but attempted to perfect the appeal by executing an appeal bond after the adjournment of court.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 278; Dee. Dig. § 64.]
    Appeal from District Court, Mason County; Clarence Martin, Judge.
    E. N. Hamilton was convicted of a misdemeanor, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was charged with and convicted of a misdemeanor. He did not enter into a recognizance during the term, but attempts to perfect his appeal by entering into an appeal bond subsequent to the adjournment of court. This confers no jurisdiction on this court. Article 918, Code of Criminal Procedure; Herron v. State, 27 Tex. 887; Cook v. State, 8 Tex. App. 671.

The appeal is dismissed.