Case Name: BRINSON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-10-30
Citations: 150 S.W. 776
Docket Number: 
Parties: BRINSON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 150
Pages: 776–777

Head Matter:
BRINSON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 30, 1912.)
1. Criminal Law (§§ 1092, 1099*) — Appeal-Dismissal — Grounds — Delay in Filing Papers;
That bills of exception and the statement of facts were not filed until more than 16 months after adjournment of the term at which appellant was convicted warrants dismissal of his appeal on motion by the Attorney General.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§, 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2919, 4370-4379; Dec. Dig. §§ 1092, 1099.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1086*) — Appeal—Dismissal— Grounds — Failure to Enter Recognizance.
Where the record on appeal from a conviction shows that accused is not confined in jail, it must show entry of recognizance in the minutes of the court in order to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeals.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2736-2769, 2770, 2772, 2794; Dec. Dig. § 1086.*]
Appeal from Lampasas County Court; M. M. White, Judge.
Dick Brinson was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was tried, upon an information charging him with an unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors and convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and imprisonment in the county jail for 20 days.
This case was tried on the 2d day of November, 1910. The statement of facts in this case was not presented to the county judge within the time allowed, and in fact was not filed with the clerk until the 26th day of March, 1912, more than 16 months after the case was tried. The bills of exception were not approved until the 26th day of March, 1912, and do not show when they were filed with the clerk; but, as shown by the record, they were not approved by the judge until more than 16 months after the adjournment of the term of court at which appellant was tried. Such delay in filing the statement of facts and hills of exception cannot be tolerated, and if the record was properly before us the motion of the Assistant Attorney General to strike them from the record would be sustained.
However, there is a matter shown by the record which deprives this court of jurisdiction to enter any order than an order of dismissal. The record discloses that appellant is not confined in jail, and while he, at the term, perhaps entered into a recognizance, yet, if so, no recognizance was ever entered in the minutes of the court. The record must show entry of recognizance in the minutes of the court in order to confer jurisdiction on this court. Maxey v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 556, 55 S. W. 823; Quarles v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 362, 39 S. W. 668; Youngman v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 459, 42 S. W. 988, 43 S. W. 519, and cases cited.
The appeal is dismissed.