Case ID: sw_300/html/0070-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HILL v. STATE.
    (No. 11084.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 9, 1927.
    Motion to Reinstate Denied Dec. 14, 1927.
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>I087(I) — Judgment stating “defendant’s attorney gave notice of appeal” held not to show statutory notice of appeal (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 827).
    Judgment containing statement that defendant’s motion for new trial was overruled and further statement that certain matters were adjudged, “after which defendant’s attorney gave notice of appeal,” held not to show compliance with Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. S27, requiring notice of appeal to be made in open court and entered of record; it not appearing to what court appeal was taken.
    On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 131 (7) — Appeal dismissed for record’s failure to show sufficient notice of appeal might not he reinstated on affidavits showing proper notice (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 827).
    Appeal dismissed for failure of record bo show sufficient notice of appeal might not be reinstated on affidavits of judge and clerk of court showing that notice of appeal was in fact sufficient under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 827, providing that, if notice of appeal is given at term when conviction is had, but not entered of record, judge may order record thereof made which shall bear date as of time when notice of appeal was actually given.
    Appeal from Morris County Court; J. O. Johnson, Judge.
    W. T. Hill was convicted of misdemeanor swindling, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    O’Neal & Harvey, of Atlanta, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Gonviction for misdemeanor swindling.

Examination of the record discloses the fact that no proper notice of appeal was given in open court and entered of record. Incorporated in what appears to be the judgment of the court is a statement that the defendant’s motion for new trial was overruled. Also in said judgment appears the following:

“It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that * * * after which defendant’s attorney gave notice of appeal.”

Manifestly this is not a notice of appeal in conformity with the statutory requirement that the notice of appeal must be made in open court and entered of record. Whether such appeal be to this court or some other does not appear. Danley v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 31, 224 S. W. 888; Sauzeda v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 461, 216 S. W. 1098.

Being of opinion that no proper notice of appeal appears in the record, and that this court is without jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.

Appellant files a motion to reinstate his appeal, and supports same, by the affidavits of the county judge of Morris county and the clerk of the county court of said county. The judge makes affidavit that the notations on his trial docket shows that appellant’s notice of appeal as given was to the Court of Criminal Appeals at Austin. The affidavit of the clerk merely sets out that, in writing the judgment of the court below, he inadvertently omitted to show that the appeal was taken to the Court of Criminal Appeals, but made the minutes show that “notice of appeal was given.” It is to be regretted that this court cannot act upon the showing made. ' The statute is very plain, and the duty of this court is to follow it. Article 827, 1925 C. C. P., provides that, if notice of appeal is given at the term at which the conviction is had and the same is not entered of record, then, by making proof of the fact, the judge of the court trying the cause shall order the same entered of .record either in term time or vacation, by entering in the minutes of his court an order to that effect, which entry when so made shall bear date as of date when notice of appeal was actually given in open court. We see no reason why this plain provision of the statute was not followed in the case before us.

Not having been followed, we are not at liberty to grant the motion, which is accordingly overruled. 
      <§^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes