Case Name: KNOWLTON et al. v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-06-17
Citations: 169 S.W. 674
Docket Number: No. 3168
Parties: KNOWLTON et al. v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 169
Pages: 674–675

Head Matter:
KNOWLTON et al. v. STATE.
(No. 3168.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 17, 1914.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1914.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1076*) — Appeal—Recognizance.
.One convicted of a misdemeanor and not in custody can only perfect an appeal under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, arts. 918, 920, 923, by entering into a recognizance during the term, and the giving of an appeal bond, or of a recognizance subsequent to the term, is insufficient.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2708-2716, 3201; Dec. Dig, § 1076.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 304*) — Evidence—Judicial Notice — Terms oe Court.
The Court of Criminal Appeals takes judicial notice of the terms of the district court of a county.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 700-717, 2951½; Dee. Dig. § 304.*]
Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; W. S. Anderson, Judge.
George Knowlton and another were convicted of aggravated assault, and they appeal.
Dismissed.
Chambers & Watson, of San Antonio, for appellants. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, P. J.
Appellants were indicted for assault with intent to murder. When tried they were convicted of aggravated assault. They entered into no recognizance. Instead they gave appeal bonds.
The state moves to dismiss the appeal because no recognizance was entered into. Under the statute and decisions the motion must be sustained. C. C. P. arts. 918, 920; Wells v. State, 150 S. W. 899; Hamilton v. State, 150 S. W. 775.
The appeal is dismissed.
Additional Opinion.
Since writing the above, appellants have filed and called to our attention a recognizance entered into by each of the appellants since June 10th inst., and thereby seek to show that this court has jurisdiction. The record shows that the term of court at which this trial occurred adjourned on February 28, 1914. No recognizance was entered into during that term of the court.
We know judicially that there have been two terms of the court since the conviction herein and that this recognizance, attempted now to be entered into, is at the third term of that court since the- conviction. Appellants have been out and not in custody during any of that time. The recognizances now entered into do not take the place, and cannot take the place, of a recognizance that should have been entered into at the term of their conviction, nor can a recognizance now entered into be taken in lieu of an appeal bond which appellants gave at the term of court at which they were convicted. The statute and the decisions are clear on this point. Articles 918, 920, 923, C. C. P.; Johnson v. State, 143 S. W. 1165; White v. State, 146 S. W. 937; Craig v. State, 147 S. W. 251; Hamilton v. State, 150 S. W. 775; Palmer v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 614, 141 S. W. 109; Holman v. State, 10 Tex. 558; Grant v. State, 8 Tex. App. 432; Her- ron v. State, 27 Tex. 337; Koritz v. State, 27 Tex. App. 53, 10 S. W. 757; Youngman v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 459, 42 S. W. 988, 43 S. W. 519; Quarles v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 362, 39 S. W. 668.
This court has no jurisdiction of this cause.