Case Name: Henry Young v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-04-07
Citations: 87 Tex. Crim. 184
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry Young v The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 184–186

Head Matter:
APRIL, 1920.
Henry Young v The State.
No. 5766.
Decided April 7, 1920.
1. —Carrying Pistol—Recognizance—Punishment.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of unlawfully carrying a pistol, the recognizance was not in substantial compliance with Article 903, Code Criminal Procedure, and failed to state the punishment assessed against the defendant, the same was insufficient. Following Watson v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 620, and other cases.
2. —Same—Rehearing—Former Conviction—Separate Offenses.
Where, upon motion for rehearing, it was shown that appellant had filed the proper recognizance, the case will be heard on its merits: Defendant's contention of a former conviction of an assault, is untenable, although the indictment charged that he was then and there unlawfully carrying a pistol. This was mere surplusage, and a conviction for assault does not bar the prosecution in the instant case for unlawfully carrying a pistol. Following Nichols v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 616, and other cases.
Appeal from the County Court of Aransas. Tried below before the Honorable F. Stevens.
Appeal from the conviction of unlawful carrying of a pistol; penalty: a fine of $100.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Judge.
By motion the Assistant Attorney General suggests that this court has not acquired jurisdiction to decide this case on its merits, for the reason that a recognizance in substantial compliance with the statute is wanting. On appeal to this court the statute, Article 903, Code of Criminal Procedure, requires that the recognizance in a case of misdemeanor shall state the punishment; at least, it has been construed in a uniform line of decisions to be incomplete if it fails to state the punishment. Watson v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 620; White v. State 68 Texas Crim. Rep., 147; 151 S. W. Rep., 826; Goss v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 349, 202 S. W. Rep., 956; Hayes v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 596, 204 S. W. Rep., 330. In the instant case the judgment shows that the fine entered against appellant was $100. In the recognizance the fine is described as "One Hundred." It is essential that the recognizance comply with the law, otherwise it would be inadequate to support a judgment forfeiting bail.
Under the facts and the law, we are constrained to sustain the motion of the State, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Dismissed.