Ballard v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ballard v. State

143 S.W. 184

DecidedJanuary 24, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 143 S.W. 184 (Ballard v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ballard v. State, 143 S.W. 184 (Tex. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted, charged with a misdemeanor, in the county court of Shelby county, and upon conviction was fined in the sum of $25, from which judgment he prosecutes this appeal.

The recognizance in this case states that appellant was “charged with the offense of horse racing on public road, and who has been convicted of such offense.” The Assistant Attorney General has moved to dismiss the appeal because of the insufficiency of the recognizance, in that it does not state that he was charged with or convicted of any offense known to our laws. Such allegations would be insufficient in an indictment or information to charge any offense, and are therefore insufficient in a recognizance, and the motion of the Assistant Attorney General is sustained. Horton v. State, 30 Tex. 191; O’Bannon v State, 9 Tex. App. 465; Schoonmaker v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 424, 35 S. W. 969.

The appeal is dismissed.'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted, charged with a misdemeanor, in the county court of Shelby county, and upon conviction was fined in the sum of $25, from which judgment he prosecutes this appeal.

The recognizance in this case states that appellant was “charged with the offense of horse racing on public road, and who has been convicted of such offense.” The Assistant Attorney General has moved to dismiss the appeal because of the insufficiency of the recognizance, in that it does not state that he was charged with or convicted of any offense known to our laws. Such allegations would be insufficient in an indictment or information to charge any offense, and are therefore insufficient in a recognizance, and the motion of the Assistant Attorney General is sustained. Horton v. State, 30 Tex. 191; O’Bannon v State, 9 Tex. App. 465; Schoonmaker v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 424, 35 S. W. 969.

The appeal is dismissed.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.W. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-state-texcrimapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack