Case Name: POPE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1929-12-18
Citations: 26 S.W.2d 635
Docket Number: No. 12832
Parties: POPE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 26
Pages: 635–638

Head Matter:
POPE v. STATE.
No. 12832.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 18, 1929.
Motion to Reinstate Denied Jan. 29, 1930.
Appeal Reinstated and Reversed Feb. 26, 1930.
State’s Rehearing Granted March 26, 1930.
Garrett & Garrett, of Jacksonville, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
• Conviction for unlawfully taking fish by the use of dynamite; punishment, a fine of $25 and thirty days in the county jail.
The trial term of the court below, as appears from the caption to the transcript, began on the 4th of February, 1929, and ended on the 4th of May of. the same year. It is provided in article 830, C. C. P., that on appeal in a misdemeanor case the accused may enter into a recognizance during the trial term, but if be fails to do so during sucb term, bfe must make an appeal bond to tbe sheriff, which bond shall be approved by the sheriff or the county judge. We find nowhere any provision for the giving of a bail bond for appeal during the term at which the case is tried, nor for a recognizance to be made by the accused after the expiration of such term. There appears in this record a bond approved by the sheriff and the county judge of date March 22, 1929, which was manifestly made during the trial term of the lower court. This gives our court no jurisdiction. Stephenson v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. R. 254, 206 S. W. 686; Thurman v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 820, 196 S. W. 181; Mathis v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 167, 194 S. W. 159.
• Attention is called also to the fact that although there is nothing in the transcript which shows that the ease did not originate in the county court, there is in this record no information filed by the county attorney as required by article 414, C. O, P. The complaint appears to have been taken before a justice of the peace in September, 1928, and it is possible that this may have been a de novo trial following a conviction in the justice court, from which an appeal was taken. In such ease there would be no need for the filing of an information in the county court, but the transcript before us makes no showing in regard to any proceedings on appeal from an inferior court, and we are compelled to treat the record as presenting a case tried upon a complaint which was filed originally in the county court.
Being without jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.
On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.
HAWKINS, J.
We regret to find appellant in no better position before this court now than when his appeal was dismissed. Originally he gave an .appeal bond during the term of court when he should have entered into a recognizance. This necessitated a dismissal of his appeal. Since that time and at a term of court subsequent to the one during which he was convicted, he has entered into a recognizance when, by the directions of article 830, O. O. P., he should have made an appeal bond. The article in question reads as follows: "When the defendant appeals in any misdemeanor case to the Court of Criminal Appeals, he shall, if he be in custody, be committed to jail unless he enter into recognizance as provided by law. If for any cause the defendant fails to enter into recognizance during the term at which he was tried, but gave notice and took an appeal from such conviction, he shall be permitted to give bail and obtain his release from custody by giving, after the expiration of such term of court, his hail hand to the sheriff with two or more good and sufficient sureties, in which tlie defendant and his sureties shall acknowledge themselves severally indebted to the State of Texas in the sum conditioned as provided in recognizance on appeal. Before the defendant shall be released on such bail bond the same must be approved by the sheriff or the judge trying the cause or his successor in office. When such bail bond is so given and approved, the defendant shall be released from custody."
We recognize that confusion exists with reference to this matter under our decisions. This is exemplified in Laird v. State, 79 Tex. Cr. R. 129, 184 S. W. 810, 3 A. L. R. 522, and Cockrell et al. v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 525, 228 S. W. 1097. Many other cases are collated in the notes under sections 105 and 106, Texas Jurisprudence, vol. 4, and under articles 818 and 830 of our Code of Criminal Procedure.
The confusion seems to have arisen by reason of the language of article 904, C. C. P. 1911 (now as revised being article 818, C. C. P.). It formerly read that if recognizance was not given during the term of court at which conviction occurred that the accused could give bail "after the expiration of such term of court and in vacation." The last three words were omitted in the revision of 1925, and article 818 now reads the same as article 830, C. C. P., which seems to make it perfectly clear that unless recognizance is entered into during the term of court in which conviction was secured, the proper procedure is to execute an appeal bond regardless of whether the court at the time may be in subsequent session.
Appellant's attorney, perhaps by reason of the confusion mentioned, and without fault on his part, has pursued the wrong course. We have no desire to deprive appellant of having his case determined on the merits, and while the present motion to reinstate the appeal must be denied, appellant is granted fifteen days from this date in which to execute and bring before this court an appeal bond complying with the statute.
The motion to reinstate is denied.
On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.
LATTIMORE, J.
In view of the fact that appellant has now filed a proper appeal bond, the dismissal of the appeal is set aside and the case considered upon its merits.
The offense was one apparently originating in the county court of Cherokee county, which we presume to have been the court in which the ease was originally filed, said offense being one which carries with it a punishment not. within the jurisdiction of a justice court. Our attention is called to the fact that no information appears to have been filed presenting the offense in the trial court. We find nothing in the record save a complaint. Mr. Branch, in section 519 of his Annotated P. 0., cites many authorities supporting the proposition that if the record on appeal in a case such as this fails to contain the information, etc., the judgment will he reversed. Garza v. State, 11 Tex. App. 410; Sponberg v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 168, 131 S. W. 541; Jennings v. State, 30 Tex. App. 428, 18 S. W. 90. If no information was filed in the trial court, the prosecution was improperly instituted, and for this reason the judgment should be reversed. Stepp v. State, 53 Tex. Or. R. 158, 109 S. W. 1093; Johnson v. State, 17 Tex. App. 230. Article 29, C.. C. P., specifically provides that upon the filing of a misdemeanor complaint, the attorney for the state shall prepare an information based on such complaint, and file same in the court having jurisdiction. There being no information in this record, this court is without jurisdiction to enter final judgment. Upon the return of the mandate of this court to the trial court, if the state desires to further prosecute, an information could then be prepared and filed with the complaint and a trial be properly had.
The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.