Case Name: E. J. Erwin v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-03-03
Citations: 87 Tex. Crim. 71
Docket Number: No. 5134
Parties: E. J. Erwin v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 71–73

Head Matter:
E. J. Erwin v. The State.
No. 5134.
Decided March 3, 1920.
1. —Aggravated Assault—Statement of Facts.
Where the statement of facts was filed too late, the same could not he considered on appeal; however, it appearing on re-hearing, hy affidavit of appellant, that the same was presented to the trial judge within the time fixed by law, the same will be considered..
2. —Same—Eecognizance—Practice on Appeal.
Where, the appeal was dismissed on a former day of the term for want of sufficient recognizance, and thereafter a sufficient recognizance was supplied, the case is reinstated to be heard upon the record.
3.—Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of aggravated assault, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, the court properly refused a peremptory instruction to acquit, and other requested charges being covered in the main charge which was applicable to the fact, the conviction is sustained.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable Robt. B. Seay.
Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $500..
C. F. Greenwood, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, his punishment being assessed at a fine of $100.
The record is before us without a statement of facts. There were three special charges presented by appellant but refused by the court. In the absence of the statement of facts we are unable to review these questions, or to reach any definite conclusion as to any supposed error in their refusal.
We have said this much with reference to the record in its present condition, but in addition to this the recognizance is not in compliance with the law, in that it fails to state the amount, of punishment assessed by the jury. See Art. 923, Vernon's Ann. C. C. P., and the authorities thereunder collated on pages 887 and' 888. Under this statute it is necessary, in order to have recognizance attach the jurisdiction of this court, that it must stipulate in the face of the recognizance the amount of punishment assessed by the jury. This recognizance does not do this. It recites that appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of aggravated assault, and was convicted of said offense, and then follows the requirements that he shall appear before the trial court from day to day and term to term in order to abide judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Had the recognizance been sufficient, an affirmance would necessarily have followed in view of the condition in which the record is presented.
The appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.