Craig v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Craig v. State

147 S.W. 229, 66 Tex. Crim. 433, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 289

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 8, 1912

DocketNo. 1761.

StatusPublished

This text of 147 S.W. 229 (Craig v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Craig v. State, 147 S.W. 229, 66 Tex. Crim. 433, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 289 (Tex. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Some days after the adjournment of court appellant executed a bond which is placed in the record as his recognizance or appeal bond. The Assistant Attorney-General moves to dismiss the appeal because, in the first place, the instrument is not a recognizance, and, in the second place, it was executed after the adjournment of court. The statute requires that the recognizance must be entered into in open court. The motion to dismiss is well taken, and the appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Some days after the adjournment of court appellant executed a bond which is placed in the record as his recognizance or appeal bond. The Assistant Attorney-General moves to dismiss the appeal because, in the first place, the instrument is not a recognizance, and, in the second place, it was executed after the adjournment of court. The statute requires that the recognizance must be entered into in open court. The motion to dismiss is well taken, and the appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.W. 229, 66 Tex. Crim. 433, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-v-state-texcrimapp-1912.