Case Name: KING v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-04-24
Citations: 203 S.W. 52
Docket Number: No. 5009
Parties: KING v. STATE.
Judges: PRENDERGAST, J., absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 203
Pages: 52–53

Head Matter:
KING v. STATE.
(No. 5009.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 24, 1918.)
1. Bail <&wkey;64 — Bond and Recognizance— Time fob Filing.
An appeal bond filed during the term at which the trial took place is not a compliance with Codo Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 902, requiring a recognizance, when the case is appealed during the term.
2. Bail <&wkey;70 — Appeal Bond — Approval by Teial Judge.
Under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 904, required approval of appeal bond by the sheriff and court trying the case, an appeal bond bearing the approval of the sheriff, but not of trial judge, is insufficient.
Appeal from District Court, Gregg County; Daniel Walker, Judge.
Joe King was convicted of burglary, and appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
E, B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, J.
Conviction is for burglary. The indictment was returned November 28, 1917, the verdict rendered the 4th of December, 1917, the motion for new trial was overruled December 13, 1917, the appeal bond appears dated the 2d day of December, 1917, approved by the sheriff, the 2d day of January, 1918, filed the 3d day of January, 1917, the term of court at which the trial took place adjourned January 6', 1918. These dates are stated in connection with the motion to dismiss the appeal made by the state. We infer that the filing date of the appeal bond is a clerical error. It was probably intended to be January 3, 1918. When one desires a release pending his appeal the law requires him to make a recognizance if his case is appealed during the term at which he is tried. Article 902, C. C. P. Failing to make a recognizance during the term, he may, after the term, be released pending his appeal by the execution of an appeal bond which must be approved by the sheriff and by the court trying the cause. C. C. P. art. 904, Vernon's C. C. P. pp. 873, 874.
This court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a judgment in the absence of compliance with the statutory regulations governing appeals, and has held uniformly that an appeal bond filed during the time at which the trial took place was not such compliance. Taylor v. State, 189 S. W. 142; Bloss v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 617, 187 S. W. 487; Lang v. State, 190 S. W. 146; Gallon v. State, 194 S. W. 1116.
Neither is an appeal bond sufficient which fails to bear, the approval of both the sheriff and the trial judge. Wells v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 277, 150 S. W. 1163. The bond in this instance bears the approval of the sheriff, but not that of the trial judge, and if filed January 3, 1918, it was during the term at which the trial took place.
On the record we have no alternative but to sustain the motion to dismiss the appeal.
PRENDERGAST, J., absent.
other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes