Case Name: Floyd Mosley v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-10-24
Citations: 82 Tex. Crim. 16
Docket Number: No. 4600
Parties: Floyd Mosley v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 16–17

Head Matter:
Floyd Mosley v. The State.
No. 4600.
Decided October 24, 1917.
1. —Fornication—Recognizance—Punishment Assessed—Election by State.
A recognizance must disclose the punishment assessed against the defendant but where this is left out by inadvertence the appeal is reinstated. Where, upon trial of fornication, the information charged in separate counts each phase of the offense, that is, first, while living together, and second, without living together, and the first count was abandoned, and the second count only was submitted, this was an election by the State of the second count, and the evidence supporting a conviction thereof, there was no reversible error.
2. —Same—Requested Charge—Practice.
Where, upon trial of fornication charging living together in the first count, the same was abandoned and the court submitted only the second count alleging without living together of the parties, there was no error in the court’s failure to submit a charge upon the first count. Following Weathersby v. State, 1 Texas Crina. App., 643, distinguishing Bird v. State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 635, and other cases.
Appeal from the County Court of Wichita. Tried below before the Eon. Harvey Harris.
Appeal from a conviction of fornication; penalty, a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars.
The opinion states the case.
W. Lindsay Bibb, for appellant.
Cited cases in opinion.
E. B. Hendricks, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment assessing a fine of $250 against appellant on his conviction of the offense of fornication.
The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the recognizance given by appellant is not in compliance with the law in that it fails to state the punishment assessed against him. An inspection of the recognizance discloses the correctness of this contention, and following previous decisions the motion must he sustained. Martoni v. State, 74 Texas Crim. Rep., 64, 166 S. W. Rep., 1169; Branch's Ann. P. C., p. 314, sec. 615, and cases listed.
Appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.