Case ID: sw_273/html/0862-01.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

BROWN v. STATE.
    (No. 9320.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 17, 1925.)
    Bail &wkey;>66 — Recognizance must state offense for which conviction was had.
    A recognizance on appeal merely stating that defendant has been convicted in “this court of a felony,” is insufficient; Yernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 903, requiring that a recognizance shall state offense for which conviction was had.
    Appeal- from District Court, Bowie County; Hugh Carney, Judge.
    W. M. Brown was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Johnson & Waters, of New Boston, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. Statejs Atty., both of Austin, for the State.'
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in district court of Bowie county of transporting intox; icating liquor; punishment, one year in^the penitentiary.

The recognizance in this case is defective. It merely states that the defendant stands charged with the .offense of a felony, and who has been convicted in “this court of a felony.” This is not sufficient. Article 903, Vernon’s C. C. P. 1916, provides the form for recognizance on appeal in felony cases, and requires that a recognizance shall state the offense for which conviction was had. Simply to describe it as a felony is bad.

The appeal will be dismissed. 
      ®=sFor otter oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes