Bodkins v. State
172 S.W. 216, 75 Tex. Crim. 499, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 502
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided December 2, 1914·No. No. 3254.·Published·Cited by 7 cases
Opinions
—The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss this appeal because of the insufficiency of the recognizance. We find that his motion is well taken. It does not comply with that part of the statute which requires the form of the recognizance to conclude with the words “in this case.” Quite a number of cases have been dismissed upon this omission in the recognizance, and following those cases the motion will be granted and the appeal dismissed.
Dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bodkins v. State, 172 S.W. 216, 75 Tex. Crim. 499, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 502 (Tex. 1914).
172 S.W. 216 (Bodkins v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Johnson v. State
614 S.W.2d 148 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Gray v. State
239 S.W. 953 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1922)
Cadle v. State
235 S.W. 894 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Halbadier v. State
214 S.W. 349 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Wong Goon Let v. United States
245 F. 745 (Ninth Circuit, 1917)
United States v. Wong Goon Let
4 D. Haw. 763 (D. Hawaii, 1916)
Simmons v. State
184 S.W. 226 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1916)