From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Orlando v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Feb 19, 1941
147 S.W.2d 1089 (Tex. Crim. App. 1941)

Opinion

No. 21382.

Delivered January 15, 1941. On Motion to Reinstate Appeal February 19, 1941.

1. — Recognizance Defect Corrected — Certificate of Clerk.

An appeal, which was originally dismissed for a defect in the recognizance which failed to state that the conviction was for a misdemeanor, would be reinstated, where the defect was corrected by a proper certificate of the clerk of the court.

2. — Plumbing Ordinance.

Where the record and the facts are identical, and the same question raised as in case No. 21379 of Clarence Morrow v. The State (reported on page 586, 140 Texas Crim. Reports), the judgment is reversed and cause remanded for the reasons stated in said cause.

Appeal from County Court at Law, No. 2, Harris County. Hon. Frank Williford, Jr., Judge.

Appeal from conviction for violating the plumbing ordinance of the city of Houston; penalty, fine of $25.00.

Reversed and remanded.

The opinion states the case.

A. E. Heidingsfelder and W. W. Wander, both of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Attorney, of Austin, for the State.


The conviction is for a misdemeanor; the punishment, a fine of $25.00.

The recognizance merely shows that appellant has been convicted. It fails to state that the conviction was for a misdemeanor. It being defective in the respect mentioned, this court is without jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

ON MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL.


Appellant was convicted of violating the plumbing ordinance of the city of Houston, and assessed a fine of $25.00.

As we understand the record, the facts are identical and the same question raised in the case decided by us in Cause No. 21,379, styled Clarence Morrow v. State, (not yet reported). (140 Tex.Crim. Rep.). For the reasons there stated, we think that error was committed.

The appeal in this cause was originally dismissed because of an error in the recognizance as shown by the record on appeal. By proper certificate the clerk of the court has corrected the error. Accordingly, the motion to reinstate the appeal is granted and the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.


Summaries of

Orlando v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Feb 19, 1941
147 S.W.2d 1089 (Tex. Crim. App. 1941)
Case details for

Orlando v. State

Case Details

Full title:TONY ORLANDO v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Feb 19, 1941

Citations

147 S.W.2d 1089 (Tex. Crim. App. 1941)
147 S.W.2d 1089