Case Name: Dorse Fortenberry v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1905-10-18
Citations: 48 Tex. Crim. 548
Docket Number: No. 3130
Parties: Dorse Fortenberry v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 548–549

Head Matter:
Dorse Fortenberry v. The State.
No. 3130.
Decided October 18, 1905.
1. —Recognizance—Amount of Punishment—Misdemeanor.-
In an appeal from a conviction of a misdemeanor, the recognizance was defective in not stating the amount of the punishment assessed against the appellant. Following: May v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 196.
2. —Same—Filing New Recognizance—Practice on Appeal.
Where a motion to file new recognizance was not filed within fifteen days from the date the appeal was dismissed, the same comes too late to - be considered on appeal.
Appeal from the County Court of Rains. Tried below before Hon. J. W. Pierson.
Appeal from a conviction of a misdemeanor; penalty, a fine of $10 and two hours confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
W. W. Berzett, for appellant.
Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HENDERSON, Judge.
The Assistant Attorney-General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the recognizance is defective, in that it does not state the amount of the punishment assessed against appellant. An examination of the recognizance shows that the motion is well taken. Art. 887, Code Crim. Proc.; May v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 196. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Dismissed.
ON REHEARING.
December 13, 1905.