Case Name: SWEAK v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-03-29
Citations: 239 S.W. 615
Docket Number: No. 6634
Parties: SWEAK v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 239
Pages: 615–615

Head Matter:
SWEAK v. STATE.
(No. 6634.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 29, 1922.)
1. Bail ©=>70 — Approval of appeal bond by county clerk held insufficient.
Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 918, as amended by Acts 36th Leg. (1919) c. 18 (Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. Supp. 1922, art. 918), an appeal bond executed after the adjournment of court must be approved by the sheriff or the presiding judge, or his successor, and hence a bond approved by the county clerk is fatally defective.
2. Bail ©=64 — Appeal bond not in statutory form is defective.
An appeal bond, which is not in the form provided for by Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 919, is defective, and will not support an appeal.
Appeal from Palls County Court; B. M. Dodson, Judge.
Mike Sweak was convicted for violation of the tick quarantine law, and he appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
The conviction is for violating the tick quarantine law.
The appeal must he dismissed on account of a defective appeal bond. The term of court at which the case was tried adjourned July 30, 1921. No recognizance was entered into during the term, but on August 5, 1921, appellant presented his appeal bond. Prior to the amendment of article 918, Code Crim. Proc. 1911, by the Acts of the 36th Leg. 1919, c. 18 (Vernon's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. Supp. 1922, art. 918), there was no provision authorizing an appeal bond to be given by one convicted of a misdemeanor after the adjournment of court. By the provisions of the amendment referred to, the appeal bond in question must be approved by the sheriff or the judge trying the cause, or his successor in office. The bond appearing in the record was not approved either by the sheriff or the judge, but is approved by the county clerk of Balls county.
An inspection of the bond will also reveal that it does not comply with the requirements of the recognizance provided for in article 919, Code Crim. Proc. It is not necessary to discuss the defects, but the same are apparent by a comparison of the bond in the record with the form of the recognizance, as laid down in said article, and also from an examination of the authorities cited under Branch's Ann. Tex. Pen. Code, § 620, and Cryer v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 621, 37 S. W. 753, 38 S. W. 203.
The appeal bond in its present form confers no jurisdiction upon this court, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.