Case Name: ZEPEDA v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1928-04-18
Citations: 7 S.W.2d 527
Docket Number: No. 11531
Parties: ZEPEDA v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 7
Pages: 527–528

Head Matter:
ZEPEDA v. STATE.
(No. 11531.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 18, 1928.
On Motion to Reinstate Appeal, May 16, 1928.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 28, 1928.
Grover C. Morris, of San Antonio, and Frank W. Steinle, of Pearsall, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. His punishment was assessed at one year in the penitentiary and suspended sentence denied.
The trial terra of court adjourned the 17th day of September, appellant's motion for new trial having been overruled and notice of appeal given on the 16th day of September. Appellant did not. enter into recognizance during, the term of court in order to secure his enlargement pending appeal, but on the same day his motion was overruled and while court was still in session he executed an appeal bond to effect his enlargement. This court acquires no jurisdiction of an appeal where an, appeal-bond is filed during the trial term of court. Article 818, C. C. P.; Lang v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 272, 190 S. W. 146; Hale v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 119, 219 S. W. 1097. Other authorities will be found collated under note 3, art. 818, Vernon's C. C. P. vol. 3.
The matter mentioned will necessitate the dismissal of the appeal. We take note, however, that the appeal bond is approved by the sheriff only. If otherwise regular it would be noneffective for lacking the approval of the trial judge. Article 818, C. C. P., requires approval of both the judge and the sheriff.
We observe that only one bill of exception appears in the record. It was not filed until the 4th day of December. In the absence of an order granting additional time appellant had only 30 days in which to file bills of exception. No additional time was allowed ; hence the bill was filed too late.
The appeal is dismissed.
On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.
MORROW, P. J.
In a motion to reinstate his appeal, the appellant presents a certified copy of tifie appeal bond, which-under article 835, C. C. P. 1925, permitting an amendment of the bond, confers upon this court the jurisdiction of the appeal. There was a plea of guilty, and' proof of the offense was uncontroverted.
But one bill of exceptions is found, and that deals with the argument of counsel for the state with reference to the issue of a suspended sentence. Appellant introduced testimony on the issue of his age. Several witnesses testified that they had no accurate knowledge as tó his age, but estimated it as being from 23 to 25 years. His mother testified that he was 24 years old. The appellant said: "I guess I am over 25 years old." Counsel for the state, in his argument, told the jury in'substance that, upon the issue of age, the burden of proof was upon the appellant. An exception was reserved to these remarks, and the court was requested in a verbal motion to disregard them. The court, in overruling the objection, committed no error.
-In the brief there is a discussion of the subject of insanity. It was recited in the judgment that the court was satisfied that the appellant was sane, and we fail' to find any evidence to the contrary. The pertinency of the discussion of the subject, and citation of authorities, such as Burton v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 138, 25 S. W. 782, and Harris v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R: 126, 172 S. W. 975, is hot perceived. We will add that the cases last mentioned have been discussed at some length in the case of Taylor v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 479 (see. page 478), 227 S. W. 679.
The order of dismissal is set aside, and the judgment- of the trial court is affirmed.