Case Name: C. A. Pierce v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1928-02-06
Citations: 109 Tex. Crim. 24
Docket Number: No. 11312
Parties: C. A. Pierce v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 24–26

Head Matter:
C. A. Pierce v. The State.
No. 11312.
Delivered February 6, 1928.
Motion to reinstate denied February 22, 1928.
The opinion states the case.
Pearcé & Triplett of Lubbock, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
CHRISTIAN, Judge.
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. Art. 802 P. C.; McFadden v. State, Opinion Number 11174, 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. Crim. App. 262. Appellant being at large, this court is without jurisdiction in the absence of a sufficient recognizance. Reed v. State, 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 sen tence upon the judgment of conviction. McFadden v. State, supra.
The appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.
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.
ON MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL.
CHRISTIAN, Judge.
Appellant has supplied an appeal bond and now requests 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, 286 S. W. 214.
The motion to reinstate the appeal is overruled.
Motion overruled.
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.