Case ID: sw_272/html/0462-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WALKER et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 8980.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 13, 1925.)
    Bail <&wkey;94 — Failure of parties, appealing from final judgment upon forfeiture of bail bond, to file briefs as required in civil cases, held-to require dismissal of appeal.
    Failure of parties .appealing from final’ judgment upon forfeiture of bail bond to file briefs as required in civil cases, as prescribed by Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 497, Rev. St. art. 2115, rule 38 of Court of Civil Appeals, and rule 102 for district and county court, held tore quire dismissal of appeal.
    Appeal from District Court, Navarro-County; Hawkins Scarborough, Judge.
    Charles M. Walker and others appeal from a final judgment upon a forfeiture of a bail bond. On motion of State’s Attorney to-dismiss appeal.
    Appeal dismissed.
    G. B. Perkinson, of Dallas, for appellants.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover-C. Morris, Asst.. State’s Atty., both of Austin,, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

This is an appeal from a-final judgment upon forfeiture of a' bail-bond.

The case was submitted on the 22d day of April. No briefs for appellants were filed in this court until April 20th, and the record fails to show that any have ever been filed in the trial court. Our state’s-attorney has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for-failure to file briefs as required in civil cases.

It has frequently and consistently been neld in cases such as this that appeals will be dismissed unless briefs have been filed in tbe court below and in tbis court in compliance with tbe law and tbe rules governing civil cases. Article 497, Code Cr. Proc.; article 2115, Rev. Civ. St.; Rules 38 Court Civil Appeals; Rule 102 for District and County Court; Mack v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 57 S. W. 811; Rudy v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 568, 191 S. W. 698; Heiman v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 480, 158 S. W. 276; Thetford v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 649, 169 S. W. 1153. Many earlier cases are referred to in those cited. Tbe latest case upon the same point is Wimberly v. State (No. 8636, Opinion April 15, 1925) 271 S. W. 608.

Tbe appeal is dismissed. 
      <&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER- in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes-