Campbell v. State
138 S.W. 607, 62 Tex. Crim. 561, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 336
Opinions
The assistant attorney-general has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the recognizance is defective. The recognizance does not state the amount of the punishment assessed against appellant as required by article 887, Code of Criminal Procedure. The recognizance being defective, the motion is sustained. See May v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 196.
The appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Campbell v. State, 138 S.W. 607, 62 Tex. Crim. 561, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 336 (Tex. 1911).
138 S.W. 607 (Campbell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Eckert v. State
672 S.W.2d 600 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Short v. State
157 S.W.2d 897 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1941)
Holder v. State
143 S.W.2d 613 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1940)
People v. Holmes
290 N.W. 384 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1940)
Armstrong v. State
42 S.W.2d 1023 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1931)
Foster v. State
279 S.W. 270 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1926)
McCoslin v. State
256 S.W. 1117 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Curry v. State
213 S.W. 268 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Johnson v. State
213 S.W. 667 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1919)
Anderson v. State
202 S.W. 944 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Dodd v. State
201 S.W. 1014 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Dickson v. State
146 S.W. 914 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Sweeney v. State
146 S.W. 883 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1912)