Case Name: V. C. Saufley v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1905-10-25
Citations: 48 Tex. Crim. 563
Docket Number: No. 3243
Parties: V. C. Saufley v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 563–565

Head Matter:
V. C. Saufley v. The State.
No. 3243.
Decided October 25, 1905.
1. —Local Option—Notice of Appeal—Recognizance—Jurisdiction—Statutes Construed.
Where upon appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law, defendant’s notice of appeal and recognizance were entered on the same day, and twelve days subsequent thereto he filed a motion amending his original motion for new trial, by consent and agreement of the trial judge. Held that under article 884, Code Criminal Procedure, and 883 and 886 id., the trial court had no further jurisdiction and the case was pending in the Court of Criminal Appeals.
2. —Same—New Recognizance—Amended Motion for New Trial—Jurisdiction.
Where on appeal in a misdemeanor, appellant’s motion for rehearing in this court did not show that he offered or did enter into a new recognizance, but that he moved the lower court to set aside his notice of appeal, the entry of judgment overruling the motion for new trial, and grant him permission to file an amended motion for new trial, which the court granted; and he desired a writ of certiorari to perfect the record, the Court of Criminal Appeals would not have jurisdiction to entertain such a case for want of a new recognizance, even if it should grant appellant’s motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the County Court of Camp. Tried below before Hon. J. D. Bass.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of $50 and thirty days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
John W. Hooper, E. A. King and M. M. Smith, for appellant.
Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
BROOKS, Judge.
This conviction was for violating the local option law, the penalty imposed being a fine of $50 and thirty days confinement in the county jail. The original motion for new trial was filed and overruled on August 7, 1905; and the recognizance was entered into on the same day. Subsequently the amended motion for new trial was filed, on August 19, 1905—twelve days after the appeal was perfected, to this court; and consequently the amended motion cannot be considered. The original motion merely insists that the evidence is not sufficient. In our opinion the evidence amply supports the finding of the court. There are no bills of exception in the record. No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ON REHEARING.
December 20, 1905.