Case Name: PIERCE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1928-02-08
Citations: 2 S.W.2d 461
Docket Number: No. 11312
Parties: PIERCE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 2
Pages: 461–462

Head Matter:
PIERCE v. STATE.
(No. 11312.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 8, 1928.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1928.
Pearce & Triplett, of Lubbock, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
CHRISTIAN, J.
Conviction for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated on a street of an incorporated city; punishment assessed at a fine of $400.
The recognizance is defective. It is recited therein that appellant is under indictment for driving an automobile while intoxicated, and that he has been convicted of a misdemeanor. One of the necessary ingredients of the offense denounced by the statute is that the automobile or motor vehicle be driven or operated upon a street or alley or any other place within the limits of an incorporated city, town, or village, or upon any public road or highway in this state. The recognizance fails to set forth an offense, as no offense of the nature described is denounced by our statute. Article 802, P. C.; McFadden v. State (No. 11174) 300 S. W. 54, delivered on November 23, 1927, but not yet officially reported. It is further noted that the offense of which appellant was convicted is a felony. It is described in the recognizance as being a misdemeanor. Campbell v. State, 22 Tex. App. 262, 2 S. W. 825. Appel-. lant being at large, this court is without jurisdiction, in the absence of a sufficient recognizance. Reed v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 505, 267 S. W. 271.
Attention is called to the fact that no sentence appears in the record. The offense of which appellant was convicted being a felony, it was the duty of the trial court to pronounce sentence upon the judgment of conviction. McFadden v. State, supra.
The appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM. Tlie 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 Motion to Reinstate Appeal.
CHRISTIAN, J.
Appellant has supplied an appeal bond, and now reguests that his appeal be reinstated.
Attention was called to the fact in our original opinion that no sentence appears in the record. The offense of which appellant was convicted is a felony. It therefore was the duty of the trial court to pronounce sentence on the judgment of conviction. The sentence constitutes the final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. This court has no jurisdiction, in the absence of a final judgment. It therefore follows that the failure of the record to show that sentence was pronounced precludes a consideration of the case on its merits. Doyle v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 582, 286 S. W. 214.
The motion to reinstate the appeal is overruled.
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.