Case Name: HENDRICKS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1929-06-05
Citations: 21 S.W.2d 508
Docket Number: No. 12532
Parties: HENDRICKS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 21
Pages: 508–509

Head Matter:
HENDRICKS v. STATE.
(No. 12532.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 5, 1929.
On the Merits, Oct. 9, 1929.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1929.
T. T. Crosson, of Ballinger, James P. Cog-dell, of Fort Worth, Baker &• Parish, of Bal-linger, and Baker & Baker, of Coleman, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.
The appellant was tried at a term of court which adjourned on the 16th day of November. To confer jurisdiction on this court of an appeal in a felony case, in which the accused is released on bail, the record must show a recognizance entered during the term of eourt. See Code Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 818, 832, 834, and cases collated in Vernon's Tex. Code Cr. Proc. 1925, vol. 3, p. 191, note 3. In the record before us there is no recognizance, but the' release of the appellant was on an appeal bond made and filed November 15th, before the court adjourned. The state's motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained. See Hale v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 119, 219 S. W. 1097; King v. State, 83 Tex., Cr. R. 304, 203 S. W. 52, and precedents collated in Vernon's C. C. P. to which reference is made above.
The appeal is dismissed.
On the Merits.
CHRISTIAN, J.
A proper' appeal bond having been filed, the judgment of dismissal is set aside, the appeal is reinstated, and the case considered on its merits.'
Appellant was at a carnival. He and one of the employees of the carnival left the grounds and drove in appellant's automobile to appellant's, home, appellant driving the car. One of the occupants of the car entered the back door of the house and shortly returned to the car. Appellant and his! companion then drove back to the carnival grounds, appellant driving the ear. As the car approached the carnival grounds, an officer commanded 'them to stop. Appéllant stopped the car, and he and his companion were ordered out of the car. Appellant's companion fled. In leaving the car, appellant picked up a pint bottle containing whisky and broke it. A small quantity of the whisky was preserved by the officer. No defensive testimony was offered. •
In his closing argument to the jury the district attorney said: 1 gentlemen of the jury, the truth of the matter is this defendant had sold that bottle of whisky to that strange man, and it is up to you, gentlemen, to help me to enforce the prohibition laws of this stately Appellant objected to the remarks of the district attorney on the ground, among others, that no evidence had been introduced tending to prove a sale of whisky by appellant. Request was made that the court instruct the jury not to consider the statement of the district attorney. The request was refused. It is certified in the bill of exception that no evidence was introduced as to any sale" of intoxicating liquor by appellant. The argument had no support in the evidence, and was improper. However, in view of the record, we fail to perceive the possibility of harm to appellant. The testimony of the state was uncontroverted. The automobile in which the whisky was transported belonged to appellant. Appellant drove the car. When stopped by the officers, he seized the bottle of whisky and broke it. No effort was made to impeach the state's witnesses. The minimum penalty was assessed. It therefore seems manifest that there could have been no more favorable verdict to appellant upon the un-controverted facts. Thomas v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 249, 4 S.W.(2d) 39.
The judgment is affirmed.
PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.