Case Name: BROWN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-17
Citations: 273 S.W. 862
Docket Number: No. 9320
Parties: BROWN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 273
Pages: 862–862

Head Matter:
BROWN v. STATE.
(No. 9320.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 17, 1925.)
Bail &wkey;>66 — Recognizance must state offense for which conviction was had.
A recognizance on appeal merely stating that defendant has been convicted in “this court of a felony,” is insufficient; Yernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 903, requiring that a recognizance shall state offense for which conviction was had.
Appeal- from District Court, Bowie County; Hugh Carney, Judge.
W. M. Brown was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Johnson & Waters, of New Boston, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. Statejs Atty., both of Austin, for the State.'

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Conviction in district court of Bowie county of transporting intox; icating liquor; punishment, one year in^the penitentiary.
The recognizance in this case is defective. It merely states that the defendant stands charged with the .offense of a felony, and who has been convicted in "this court of a felony." This is not sufficient. Article 903, Vernon's C. C. P. 1916, provides the form for recognizance on appeal in felony cases, and requires that a recognizance shall state the offense for which conviction was had. Simply to describe it as a felony is bad.
The appeal will be dismissed.
®=sFor otter oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes