Case Name: R. F. Thompson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-04-27
Citations: 90 Tex. Crim. 222
Docket Number: No. 6229
Parties: R. F. Thompson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 222–225

Head Matter:
R. F. Thompson v. The State.
No. 6229.
Decided April 27, 1921.
Rehearing denied November 2, 1921.
1. — Robbery—Recognizance—Practice on Appeal.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of robbery, the recognizance failed to show that appellant had been convicted of any offense, and did not bind him to abide the judgment of this court, same was defective, but a sufficient recognizance having been filed, the case is heard upon its merits.
2. — Companion Case — Rule Stated — Practice on Appeal.
Legal questions which are raised in companion cases and, decided adversely to appellant need not be again considered.
3. — Same—Jeopardy—Practice in Trial Court.
Where the robbery occurred in a gambling house and a number of parties were robbed by defendant, for one of which robberies he had already been convicted, he could not interpose a plea of former jeopardy in the instant case; besides, the matter was submitted to the jury who found against him.
4. — Same—Charge of Court — Former Jeopardy — Practice in Trial Court.
Where, upon trial of' robbery, while the court’s charge may not have been appropriate in some cases where the issue was raised of former jeopardy, yet under the facts of the instant case, where many parties were robbed in one holdup, there was no reversible error. Distinguishing Span-nell v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 418. However, evidence of robbing other persons at the same time was admissible as res gestae.
Appeal from the District Court of Eastland. Tried below' before the Honorable E. A. Hill.
Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion state the case.
Grisham Bros., for appellant.
C. M. Cureton, Attorney General, and C. L. Stone, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of robbery, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of ten years.
The State has filed its motion to have the appeal dismissed because of a defective recognizance. After conviction, in order to secure his release from custody pending this appeal, appellant entered into the following recognizance. "This day came before the Court in session the Defendant, R. F. Thompson and came also with him J. L. Thompson and J. T. Miller and J. A. Easterland, and the said R. F. Thompson as principal, and the said J. E. Thompson, J. T. Miller and J. A. Easter-land, as his sureties, each acknowledged himself to owe and be indebted to the State of Texas, the said principal, R. F. Thompson in the full sum of $2000.00, and the said sureties J. E. Thompson and J. T. Miller and J. A. Easterland each in the sum of $2000.00 to be levied on their goods and chattels, lands and tenements; to be void, nevertheless, on condition that the said principal, R. F. Thompson, who stands legally charged in this court with the offense, that is a felony to-wit: the offense of robbery with fire-arms by indictment duly presented and pending against him in the above entitled and numbered cause, shall well and truly make his personal appearance before this, the District Court of Eastland county, Texas at this present term of said court now in session, at the Court House of said County then and there to remain from term to term and day to day of said court, to answer the said accusation preferred against him by said indictment until discharged from further liability thereon according to law." The recognizance is totally insufficient to authorize this court to entertain the appeal. It might be good as an appearance recognizance in the trial court, but is not in conformity to Articles 902 and 903, Vernon's C. C. P., setting out the requirements of a recognizance on appeal in felony cases. It fails to show that appellant had been convicted of any offense, and does not bind him to abide the judgment of this court. Where the form of the recognizance is plainly set out in the statute, as it is in Article 903, there would appear to be little excuse for not following the same. Black v. State, 68 Texas Crim. Rep., 151, 151 S. W. Rep., 1053; King v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 304, 203 S. W. Rep., 52; Westbrook v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 223, 227 S. W. Rep., 1104.
The State's motion is sustained, and the appeal is ordered dismissed.
Dismissed.