Cotton v. State

25 S.W.2d 857, 114 Tex. Crim. 408, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 174
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cotton v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 113 Tex. Crim. 188
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided March 12, 1930·No. No. 13117.·Published

Opinion

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Driving an automobile upon the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor is the offense; punishment fixed at a fine of fifty dollars.

State’s counsel makes a motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground, first, that the recognizance does not describe the offense, and second, that the record reveals no sentence. The first ground is overruled. This is a felony case, and the recognizance is deemed sufficient. See Art. 817, C. C. P., 1925. In a felony case, unless the death penalty is assessed, the sentence is essential as a predicate for an appeal. See Art. 709, C. C. P., Vernon’s Ann. Tex. C. C P., 1925, Vol. 3, p. 150; Ridge v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 496; Carlile v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 477.

The appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

Cotton v. State, 25 S.W.2d 857, 114 Tex. Crim. 408, 1930 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 174 (Tex. 1930).

25 S.W.2d 857 (Cotton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ridge v. State
258 S.W. 472 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Carlile Davis v. State
262 S.W. 489 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)