Case Name: WOOLDRIDGE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-22
Citations: 135 S.W. 124
Docket Number: 
Parties: WOOLDRIDGE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 135
Pages: 124–124

Head Matter:
WOOLDRIDGE v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 22, 1911.)
Cbbiinal Law (§ 1023 ) — Appeal — Final Judgment — Sentence.
Under Code Or. Proc. art. 834, requiring that sentence shall be pronounced before appeal is taken, sentence after conviction is essential to a final judgment; and, in the absence, an appeal must be dismissed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2596; Dec. Dig. § 1023. ]
Appeal from District Court, Brown County ; John W. Goodwin, Judge.
Good Wooldridge was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
Dismissed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
The appellant was indicted and convicted of seduction, and the penalty fixed at two years' confinement.
The Assistant Attorney General has made a motion to dismiss this appeal, because the transcript does not show that final judgment of sentence of the appellant was ever made or entered. An examination of the record shows that no judgment of sentence has ever been entered against the appellant. Hence there is no final judgment. It has been the uniform holding of this court, since article 834, Code of Criminal Procedure, was adopted that the sentence after conviction was essential to show a final judgment. Heinzman v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 76, 29 S. W. 156, 482; Pate v. State, 21 Tex. App. 191, 17 S. W. 461; Walters v. State, 18 Tex. App. 8; Hart v. State, 14 Tex. App. 323; Arcia v. State, 26 Tex. App. 193, 9 S. W. 685.
The motion is therefore granted, and the cause dismissed.