Case Name: GOODWIN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-15
Citations: 138 S.W. 399
Docket Number: 
Parties: GOODWIN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 138
Pages: 399–400

Head Matter:
GOODWIN v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 15, 1911.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 8, 1911. Further Rehearing Denied June 23, 1911.)
1. Bail (§ 65 ) — Appeal — Recognizance— Requisites
Under Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 887, as amended by Acts 25th Leg. c. 5, providing a form of recognizance on appeal in misdemean- or cases, a recognizance in a misdemeanor case must, to prevent a dismissal of the appeal, state the punishment assessed against accused.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65. ]
On Rehearing.
2. Highways (§ 186 ) — Use of Highway-Speed of Automobiles — Offenses — Complaint — Sufficiency.
Under Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 448, providing that an indictment, which gives defendant notice of the particular offense charged is sufficient, a complaint alleging that accused operated an automobile at a greater speed than IS miles an hour on a public road not a speedway charges a violation of Acts 30th Leg. c. 96, regulating the speed of automobiles on public highways.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Highways, Dec. Dig. § 186. ]
3. Highways (§ 186 ) — Use of Highways— Automobiles — Statutoby Offenses.
Acts 30th Leg. c. 96, prohibiting the operation of automobiles at a speed greater than 18 miles an hour on any public road , not a speedway, does not make the intent of ah operator of an automobile an element ‘of the offense; but an operator must at his peril keep within the statutory limit.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Highways, Cent. Dig. § 476; Dec. Dig. § 186. ]
4. Highways (§ 188 ) — Use of Highways— Automobiles — Statutory Offenses.
A driver of an automobile is not relieved from the penalty for operating it at a speed in excess of that fixed by Acts 30th Leg. c. 96, on the ground that the automobile was under the control of a third person riding therein, unless the driver shows that he was under duress and drove the automobile at the instance of the third person.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Highways, Cent. Dig. § 476; Dec. Dig. § 186. ]
5. Criminal Law (§ 1066 ) — Appeal — Bill of Exceptions.
Grounds of complaint in a motion for new trial in a misdemeanor case cannot be considered, unless bills of exceptions are reserved to the rulings of the trial court.
[Ed. Note.- — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2686; Dee. Dig. § 1066. !
6. Ceiminal Law (§ 1090 ) — Appeal—Bill op Exceptions.
Where, in a misdemeanor case, there was some evidence of a fact essential to a conviction, and there was no requested charge that the evidence was insufficient, the question of the insufficiency of the evidence, not presented by a bill of exceptions in any form, is not reviewable on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1090. ]
Appeal from Jefferson County Court; R. W. Wilson, Judge.
B. W. Goodwin was convicted of a misdemeanor, and lie appeals.
Affirmed.
McDowell & Davidson, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dee. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
The appellant in this case was tried and convicted in the county court of Jefferson county, charged with a misdemeanor.
The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because of the insufficiency of the recognizance, in that said recognizance does not state the punishment assessed against the appellant. In May v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 196, 49 S. W. 402, it is held: "The Twenty-Fifth Legislature amended article 887 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and provided a form for recognizance on appeal in misdemeanor cases. Among other things, said bond is conditioned that 'appellant, who has been convicted in this case of a misdemeanor, and his punishment assessed at ip-, as more fully appears from the judgment of conviction, shall appear before this court,' etc., and a recognizance that does not state the punishment assessed is insufficient."
In this case the recognizance is defective in that particular, and the motion of the Assistant Attorney General is sustained, and the appeal in this case is dismissed.