Case Name: J. H. Hanson v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-05-10
Citations: 93 Tex. Crim. 333
Docket Number: No. 6958
Parties: J. H. Hanson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 333–335

Head Matter:
J. H. Hanson v. The State.
No. 6958.
Decided May 10, 1922.
Rehearing granted January 31, 1923.
1. —Unlawful Transportation of Intoxicating Liquor — Appeal Bond — Statutes Construed — Misdemeanor—Felony.
The latter part of Article 918, C. C. P., with reference to appeal bond in misdemeanors, provides that the same must be approved by the sheriff or the judge trying the case, while Article 904 C. C. P., in appeals from felony cases, requires the appeal bond to be approved both by the sheriff and the judge, and where the appeal bond in the instant case was not approved by the trial judge the same conferred no jurisdiction on this court. However, the same having been corrected the appeal is reinstated and tried upon its merits.
2. —Same—Accomplice Testimony — Statutes Construed — Expost Facto.
It is not necessary to construe Section C., of the amended law of the Thirty-seventh Legislature, as to the purchaser, etc., of intoxicating liquor, further thart to advert to the fact that it changed the rule of evidence with reference to an accomplice witness, and therefore did not apply in the trial of the instant case because it related to a transaction occurring prior to the time the amendment took effect, and it being an expost facto law it was necessary for the court to charge upon accomplice testimony. Following, Plachy v. State, 239 S. W. Rep., 979, and other cases, and the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
Appeal from the District Court of Shackelford. Tried below before the Honorable W. R. Ely.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted for unalwfully trans porting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of three years.
The court in which conviction was had adjourned on December 30, 1921. No recognizance was entered into by appellant during the term, but on January 13, 1922, he executed his appeal bond under the provisions of Article 904 C. C. P. The bond is approved by the sheriff, but fails to show approval also by the judge before whom the case was tried. The latter part of said Article 904 reads as follows: "Before such bail bond shall be accepted and the defendant released from custody by reason thereof the same must be approved by such sheriff and the court trying said cause, or his successor in office."
Some confusion seems to have arisen because of the different requirements for appeal bonds in misdemeanors as provided in Article 918 C. C. P., and in that for felony cases in Article 904. The latter part of Article 918 providing for appeal bonds in misdemeanors requires that such bond must be approved by the Sheriff or the judge trying the cause, while Article 904, providing for appeal bonds in felony cases requires them to be approved both by the sheriff and the judge. (Sweak v. State, No. 6634, opinion delivered March 29, 1922).
The appeal bond in the instant case being defective in the particular heretofore pointed out, no jurisdiction is conferred upon this court, and it will be therefore necessary to order a dismissal of the appeal.
Dismissed.