Carter v. State

170 Tex. Crim. 123
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided May 25, 1960·No. No. 32,044·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is felony theft; the punishment, 2 years.

It appears from the transcript that appellant is at large upon recognizance on appeal which is not set out in the transcript.

In the absence of a recognizance or bond substantially in the form required by statute, the appellant not being confined in jail, this court is without jurisdiction to enter any order except to dismiss the appeal. Reid v. State, 163 Tex. Cr. R. 40, 289 S.W. 2d 237.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal

A supplemental transcript has been forwarded to this court, but we find the recognizance set out therein to be the same as that contained in the original transcript and which we found not to be in the form required by statute.

Motion to reinstate the appeal is denied.

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

Carter v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 123 (Tex. 1960).

170 Tex. Crim. 123 (Carter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Layman v. State
384 S.W.2d 145 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1964)