Case Name: HOWELL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-04-17
Citations: 148 S.W. 302
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOWELL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 148
Pages: 302–302

Head Matter:
HOWELL v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 17, 1912.
On Motion for Rehearing, May 15, 1912.)
1. Bail (§ 65 ) — Appeal — Recognizance-Sufficiency.
An appeal from a conviction cannot be sustained, where the recognizance fails to state the amount of the punishment assessed against the accused.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Bail (§ 72 ) — Appeal — Recognizance— Amendment.
. Acts 29th Leg. c. 115, provides that, where a recognizance on appeal in a criminal case is defective, the appealing party may enter into a sufficient recognizance, and when this is done the Court of Criminal Appeals will entertain the appeal. Held, that where a recognizance was fatally defective, and a motion to dismiss had been made and sustained for that reason, a review could not be had by tendering a sufficient bond in the Court of Criminal Appeals; the proper practice being to enter into a new sufficient recognizance before the court or judge who tried the case.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 288; Dec. Dig. § 72. ]
Appeal from Dallas County Court at Law; W. F. Whitehurst, Judge.
Jess Howell was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. On motion to dismiss.
Granted.
P. J. Hemphill and Wiley & Baskett, all of Dallas, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER, in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Motion is made by the Assistant Attorney General to dismiss this appeal, because the recognizance is fatally defective, in that it does not state the amount of the punishment assessed against appellant. An inspection of that instrument sustains the contention of the state.
It is well taken; therefore the appeal will be dismissed.