Case Name: MEADORS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-01-30
Citations: 260 S.W. 580
Docket Number: No. 7856
Parties: MEADORS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 260
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
MEADORS v. STATE.
(No. 7856.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 30, 1924.
Rehearing Denied April 9, 1924.)
1. Criminal law &wkey;>1086(13)— Appeal dismissed where record showed no sentence.
An allegation in the transcript on appeal that defendant had been duly and legally convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition laws of the state, with a recital of the punishment assessed and of his sentence in accordance with said conviction, ‘held insufficient to show a final judgment or that sentence was ever passed on defendant, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed, in view of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proe. 1916, art. 856.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law &wkey;>99l(/2), 10)7 — Sentence held a nullity and appellate court without jurisdiction of appeal.
The appellate court was without jurisdiction of an appeal from a sentence in a liquor prosecution for “violating the prohibition laws of the state,” there being no such offense known to the law, and the purported sentence being in fact no sentence at all, and the appellate court being without authority, under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 938, to make an order which'would, in effect, be pronouncing the sentence itself.
^=3 For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Appeal from District Court, Robertson County; W. C. Davis, Judge.
George Meadors was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Henry A. Bush, of Franklin, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Appellant was convicted upon an indictment containing two counts, one charging the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and one the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.
It will be necessary to order a dismissal of this appeal because no final judgment is shown. The sentence is the final judgment, and no appeal will lie to this court from a conviction for a felony, save where the death penalty may have been assessed, until after sentence has been pronounced. See article 856, C. C. P., and many cases collated thereunder in Vernon's Crim. Stat. vol. 2, p. 851; also, notes under the same article in Vernon's Civil & Crim. Stat., 1922 Supplement.
There appears in the transcript and immediately following the judgment a recital that appellant "had been duly and legally convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition laws of the state of Texas, and his punishment therefor having been assessed and adjudged at confinement in the penitentiary for one year, and he having, on the 2d day of February, A. D. 1923, by said court, been sentenced in due form of law in accordance with said conviction." The foregoing recital is upon its face an incomplete statement and will not suffice for the sentence if, in fact, sentence was ever pronounced.
For the reason stated, the appeal must be dismissed and it is so ordered.