Case Name: TUCKNESS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-03
Citations: 276 S.W. 277
Docket Number: No. 9299
Parties: TUCKNESS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 276
Pages: 277–279

Head Matter:
TUCKNESS v. STATE.
(No. 9299.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 3, 1925.
On the Merits, June 24, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1925.)
J. G. Bishop, of Gorman, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, J.
The appellant was indicted for unlawfully possessing a still for the purpose of manufacturing spirituous, vinous, and malt liquor, capable of producing intoxication, in the district court of Dawson county, convicted on said charge, and his punishment assessed at one year's confinement in the penitentiary.
The record on appeal fails to show that the appellant was ever sentenced by the trial court in this case. The sentence is' essential to give this court jurisdiction. Article 856, Vernon's C. C. P. 1916, is as follows:
"When an appeal is taken in .eases of .felony, where the verdict prescribes the death penalty, sentence shall not be pronounced, but shall be suspended until the decision of the Court of Appeals has been received. In all other cases of felony, sentence shall be propounded before the appeal is taken."
Under said article this court has uniformly held that without proper sentence this court has no jurisdiction of eases appealed from the lower court. Woolridge v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 324, 135 S. W. 124, and many recent cases might he cited if necessary.
For the reasons above stated, this appeal is dismissed.
' PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
On the Merits.
BAKER, j.
This appeal was dismissed at a former day of this court on- account of the record failing to show that appellant had been sentenced, and since said time the record has been perfected and will now be considered.
The appellant was indicted and convicted in the district court of Dawson cotínty of having a still in his possession for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year's confinement in the penitentiary.
Upon inspection of the record, we find .that the statement of facts filed herein is made up in question and answer form. Article 846, C. C. P., requires the statement of facts to be made up in narrative form and prohibits same to be prepared in question and answer form as in this instance. There are many authorities in this state construing this statute, holding that this court is not authorized to consider a statement of facts so prepared. Branch's 'Ann.' P. C. § 601, and the authorities therein cited. Jacobs v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 253, 242 S. W. 232, James v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 612, 262 S. W. 500, and many. other authorities we might cite sustaining the same proposition.
The appellant in this case urges by his bills of exception and special charges complaint against the . action of the court in trying this cage, but, without a proper statement of facts, we have to presume that the court committed no error in such matters as are therein complained of. The indictment, court's charge, verdict of jury, and judgment being regular, we are of the opinion that, the record as presented fails to show anj>- error committed by the trial court, and this judgment should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.