Cox v. State

5 S.W.2d 521, 109 Tex. Crim. 465, 1928 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 307
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cox v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 100 Tex. Crim. 172
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided April 11, 1928·No. No. 11801.·Published

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for assault with intent to commit robbery, punishment three years in the penitentiary.

The record before us contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception, hence nothing is presented for review. However, we find ourselves without authority to enter any order save dismissing the appeal because of a defective recognizance which confers no jurisdiction on this court. The recognizance merely recites that appellant “stands charged” with an offense and omits a recital that he has been “convicted.” (Art. 817, C. C. P.; Sanders v. State, 201 S. W. 411; Thompson v. State, 243 S. W. 848; Bethune v. State, 95 Tex. Crim. Rep. 508, 254 S. W. 798; Daniels v. State, 95 Tex. Crim. Rep. 649, 255 S. W. 444; Wilmering v. State, 100 Tex. Crim. Rep. 169, 272 S. W. 463; Lynch v. State, 102 Tex. Crim. Rep. 638, 279 S. W. 271.) The state’s motion to dismiss the appeal for the defect in the recognizance must prevail.

The appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

Cox v. State, 5 S.W.2d 521, 109 Tex. Crim. 465, 1928 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 307 (Tex. 1928).

5 S.W.2d 521 (Cox v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lynch v. State
279 S.W. 271 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Bethune v. State
254 S.W. 798 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Sanders v. State
201 S.W. 411 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1917)
Wilmering v. State
272 S.W. 463 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Thompson v. State
243 S.W. 848 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Daniels v. State
255 S.W. 444 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)