Case Name: Caz Donegan v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-12-01
Citations: 89 Tex. Crim. 193
Docket Number: No. 5985
Parties: Caz Donegan v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 193–199

Head Matter:
Caz Donegan v. The State.
No. 5985.
Decided December 1, 1920.
Rehearing Granted April 20, 1921.
1. —Receiving Stolen Property—Final Judgment—Practice on Appeal.
In the absence of a final judgment in the record on appeal, the appeal must be dismissed; besides, the notice of appeal was defective; however, the record having been corrected, the appeal is reinstated.
2. —Same—Jury and Jury Law—Jury Commissioners—Rehearing—Oath Necessary.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of receiving stolen property under the value of $50, it appeared from the record that the jury commissioners, who selected the jury in the county court, were not sworn by the County Judge, to draw the jury for the term for which the defendant was tried, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded; however, the fact that the County Judge and the District Judge appointed the same men as jury commissioners for their respective courts, was no cause for reversal; following White v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 598.
.'3.—Same—Rule Stated—Trial by Jury—Jury and Jury Law.
The right of trial by jury stands upon a higher plane than expediency, and fair trial by jury means a jury selected according to the law, regulating their selection and empannelment, and where in the instant case the jury was not selected by a properly appointed jury commissioner, the same is reversible error. Following Irvin v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 331, and other cases.
Appeal from the County Court of Nacogdoches. Tried below before the Honorable J. F. Perritts.
Appeal from a conviction of receiving stolen property; penalty, a fine of $25.00.
The opinion states the case.
S. M. Adams, for appellant.
—Cited cases in opinion.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
—On question of Jury commissioners.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of receiving stolen property of less than the value of fifty dollars, in the County Court of Nacogdoches County, and the jury assessed his punishment at a fine of $25, and twenty-four hours imprisonment in the county jail.
Our Assistant Attorney General has moved to dismiss this appeal because there appears in the record no final judgment. An examination of the record discloses that the motion must be sustained, as there appears nothing in the record save and except the verdict of the jury. It is required by our Code of Criminal Procedure, that no appeal can be considered until a final judgment has been rendered in the court below. The requisites for a final judgment in a misdemeanor case in the court below, will be found in Articles 867 and 868, of our Code of Criminal Procedure. For the want of a final judgment, this appeal must be dismissed.
We also call attention to the further defect,- in the matter of giving notice of appeal to this Court, it appearing in the order of,the court overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, that instead of giving a notice of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, said order recites that appellant "gave notice . to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas." It would appear that the giving notice to this Court would hardly be tantamount to the necessary requisite of giving a notice of appeal.
The appeal will be dismissed.
Dismissed,