Case ID: sw_179/html/0718-01.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

DORRIS v. STATE.
    (No. 3738.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 27, 1915.)
    1. Bail &wkey;?65 — Criminal Prosecution — Form.
    An appeal from a conviction in a criminal case will be dismissed, where the recognizance does not set forth the punishment assessed, as required by the statute.
    I Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. 4&wkey;65.]
    2. Criminal Law <&wkey;1099 — Appeal—Record —Statement of Facts — Approval Below— Necessity.
    The statement of facts on appeal in a criminal case cannot be considered, where it fails to show a presentment to or approval by the county judge.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law,-.Cent. Dig1. §§ 2866-2880; Dec. Dig: <&wkey;> 1099.]
    3. Criminal Law <&wkey;1097 — Appeal—Refusal to Charge — Statement of Facts — Necessity.
    Upon appeal in a criminal case, the action of the trial court in refusing to give special charges, as requested, cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a statement of facts.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. &wkey; 1097.]
    Appeal from Fisher County Court; M. A. Hopson, Judge.
    John Roe Dorris was convicted of wife desertion, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    J. D. Barker, of Roby, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of wife desertion, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $200 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months.

The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal because the recognizance is not in compliance with the statute, and this motion must be sustained. May v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 196 49 S. W. 402; Johnson v. State, 49 S. W. 594.

But if the recognizance was sufficient to give this court jurisdiction, the statement of facts does not show to have been presented to nor approved by the county judge, and we could not consider the paper alleged to be a statement of facts. The only complaint in the motion for a new trial relates to the failure of the court to give special charges requested. With no statement of facts we can consider, it would be impossible for us to determine whether or not they, or either of them, should have been given.

The appeal is dismissed.