Case Name: G. M. White v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-05-05
Citations: 87 Tex. Crim. 315
Docket Number: No. 5765
Parties: G. M. White v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 315–318

Head Matter:
G. M. White v. The State.
No. 5765.
Decided May 5, 1920.
1.—Tick Eradication—Recognizance—Transcript—Custody.
It is necessary that the record show either a recognizance, or the affirmative fact that the appellant has been continuously in jail since the overruling of his motion for new trial, in order to give this court jurisdiction, and the mere statement of the clerk that defendant is in the custody of the sheriff is not sufficient. Following Bruce v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 378, and other cases.
2. —Same—Ex Parte—Affidavit—Jurisdiction—Custody.
The question involved being the jurisdiction of this court, the right to consider an ex parte affidavit of the sheriff that appellant is not in his custody is necessary.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Statutes—Construed.
Where, appellant contended that, under Article 918, Vernon’s C. C. P., as amended by Chapter 18 of the Act of the regular session of the Thirty-sixth Legislature, this court acquired jurisdiction by the notice of appeal, and that whether or not the appellant was in custody or had given his recognizance became immaterial; held. While this-act gave to the appellant the right to make a bail bond, etc., it does not seem to change the necessity that the record show upon appeal that appellant is either in jail or at large upon bail or recognizance, and the appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal from the County Court of Coryell. Tried below before the Honorable R. B. Cross.
Appeal from a conviction of tick eradication; penalty, a fine of Fifty Dollars.
The opinion states the case.
Mears & Watkins, for appellant.
Cited cases in opinion.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Cited cases in opinion.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the County Court of Coryell County, for a violation of the Tick Eradication Law, and fined the sum of $50.
We are met at the threshold of the consideration of this case, with a motion to dismiss this appeal, because the record contains neither recognizance nor affirmative showing that appellant had been continuously in jail. To this, appellant has replied, calling attention to a statement appearing on the last page of the transcript, which is as follows: "Defendant failed to enter into bond or recognizance and is in custody of the sheriff.
Our statute, Article 918, Vernon's C. C. P., and decisions, seem to make it necessary that the record show either a recognizance, or the affirmative fact that the appellant has been continuously in jail since the overruling of his motion for new trial. Harris v. State, 2 Texas Crim. App., 139; Young v. State, S Texas Crim. App., 81; Evans v. State, 8 Texas Crim. App., 671; Sandifer v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 361.
A statement of the clerk, in the transcript, that the defendant is now in the county jail; held not sufficient, in the absence of a recognizance for showing that he has been continuously in jail since his motion for new trial was overruled. Bruce v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 378, 58 S. W. Rep., 722; Woods, v. State, 55 S. W. Rep., 50; McHenry v. State, 42 Texas Crim. Rep., 469, 60 S. W. Rep., 880.
Appended to the motion of the Assistant Attorney General, is the affidavit of the sheriff of Coryell County, to the effect that at no time since the trial of appellant has he been in the custody of said officer, and that he is not now, and has not been, in jail. The question involved being the jurisdiction of this Court, we have the right to consider such ex parte affidavits, if necessary to ascertain the true facts.
For the reason that this court is without jurisdiction, in the absence of a recognizance or affirmative showing that appellant is in jail the motion of the State will be sustained, and the appeal dismissed.
Dismissed.