Case Name: WHITE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-04-07
Citations: 221 S.W. 283
Docket Number: No. 5765
Parties: WHITE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 221
Pages: 283–285

Head Matter:
WHITE v. STATE.
(No. 5765.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 7, 1920.
On Motion for Rehearing, May 5, 1920.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;1086(1) — Record of misdemeanor appeal must show recognizance or continuous custody.
Under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 918, authorizing bail on appeal from misdemeanor convictions, the record on appeal, to give the appellate court jurisdiction, must show either a recognizance or the affirmative fact that appellant has been continuously in jail since the overruling of his motion for new trial.
2. Criminal law 1083(16) — Clerk’s statement that defendant is in custody is not sufficient to sustain appeal.
A statement of the clerk in the transcript that the defendant is in custody of the sheriff is not sufficient to show that he has been continuously in jail since his motion for new trial was overruled.
3. Criminal law <@=1128(4) — Affidavit that defendant is not in custody may be considered to determine jurisdiction on appeal.
Since the question whether defendant has been continuously in custody since his motion for new trial was overruled iñ a misdemeanor case affects the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals in the absence of a recognizance in the record, the court can consider an ex parte affidavit by the sheriff that defendant is not in custody.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;l086(l)— Amendment of statute allowing bail pending appeal does not affect appellate jurisdiction.
The amendment of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 918, by Acts 36th Leg. (1919) e. 18, to authorize bail by defendant, convicted of a misdemeanor pending his appeal after expiration of the term at which he was convicted, does not change the rule that the record must show either a recognizance or continuous custody of defendant.
5. Bail <&wkey;44 — May be allowed pending appeal from misdemeanor conviction.
Under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 918, as amended by Acts 36th Leg. (1919) c. 18, authorizing bail of one convicted of a misdemeanor after expiration of the court term, a defendant convicted of misdemeanor can secure release from custody pending the appeal by giving a bond conditioned as an appeal recognizance, and his release from custody under such bond will not affect the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Appeal from Coryell Comity Court; R. B. Cross, Judge.
G-. M. White was convicted of violating the Tick Eradication Law, and he appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Mears & Watkins, of Gatesville, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tlfe State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the county court of Coryell county, for a violation of the Tick Eradication Law (Vernon's Sayles! Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 7314-7314e, Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. Supp. 1918, arts. 7314-7314q), 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, art. 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 Tex. App. 139; Young v. State, 8 Tex. App. 81; Evans v. State, 8 Tex. App. 671; Sandifer v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. R. 361, 139 S. W. 1155.
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 or showing that he has been continuously in jail since his motion for new trial was overruled. Bruce v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 378, 50 S. W. 722; Woods v. State, 55 S. W. 50; McHenry v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 469, 60 S. W. 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.
other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes