Case Name: PALMER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-11-15
Citations: 141 S.W. 109
Docket Number: 
Parties: PALMER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 141
Pages: 109–110

Head Matter:
PALMER v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 15, 1911.)
1. Bail (§ 64 )—Appeal Bond—Propriety.
The statute does not authorize the giving of an appeal bond in lieu of a recognizance upon appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals in a misdemeanor case.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bail, Dec. Dig. § 64. ]
2. Bail (§ 65 )—Recognizance on Appeal— Sufficiency.
A recognizance, given in a misdemeanor prosecution for unlawfully carrying a pistol, was defective, where it did not state the amount of the fine assessed, and also merely stated that accused “carried concealed weapons.”
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 285; Dec. Dig. § 65. ]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1087 )—Appeal—Record —Notice op Appeal—Dismissal.
A misdemeanor appeal will be dismissed, where the record does not contain a notice of appeal.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2770-2794; Dec. Dig. § 1087. ]
Appeal from Collingsworth County Court; R. H. Cocke, Jr., Judge.
Tom Palmer was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
This conviction was for carrying a pistol.
Appellant gave an obligation after his conviction, which is in the nature of an appeal bond, and not a recognizance. The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss this appeal, because there was no recognizance entered into in the trial court. We are of opinion this motion should be sustained. There is no authority in the statute for the giving of an appeal bond in lieu of a recognizance as a basis for an appeal to this court.
But, even if such was authorized by law, the bond entered into by appellant does not comply with the terms of the statute fixing the elements of a recognizance. It fails to state the amount of the fine adjudged against appellant in the trial court. It also charges that he carried "concealed weapons." The recognizance is required to recite that he was convicted of a misdemeanor. It might be, however, that, if the misdemeanor as charged in the information or indictment was properly set out in the recognizance, this might not be so material. We think this ground of the motion is well taken.
There is another ground of the motion to dismiss the appeal, to wit, the record does not contain notice of appeal. We find this statement verified by the transcript.
Both grounds of the motion, therefore, must be sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.