From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saladina v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Nov 5, 1930
32 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930)

Opinion

No. 13653.

Delivered November 5, 1930.

Appeal — Recognizance.

The recognizance does not state that appellant has been convicted of a felony and hence is defective and confers no jurisdiction.

Appeal from the District Court of Brazoria County. Tried below before the Hon. M. S. Munson, Judge.

Appeal from a conviction for the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for one year and nine months.

The opinion states the case.

A. R. Rucks of Angleton, for appellant.

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


The possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale is the offense; penalty, confinement in the penitentiary for one year and nine months.

State's counsel challenges the jurisdiction of the court to consider the case for want of proper recognizance. The purported recognizance is defective in that it states that the defendant was charged with the offense of "unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor." The statute, Art. 817, C. C. P., 1925, demands that the recognizance state that the accused is convicted of a felony. See Barnaby v. State, 268 S.W. 470; Wilmering v. State, 272 S.W. 463. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Twenty days are allowed the appellant within which to perfect his appeal if he desires to do so.

Dismissed.

HAWKINS, J., absent.


Summaries of

Saladina v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Nov 5, 1930
32 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930)
Case details for

Saladina v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOE SALADINA v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Nov 5, 1930

Citations

32 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 1930)
32 S.W.2d 465