Daniel v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Daniel v. State

255 S.W. 444, 95 Tex. Crim. 649, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 741

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided October 10, 1923·No. No. 7565.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Conviction is for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

The motion of the State to dismiss the appeal must be sustained for the reason that the document denominated a recognizance is, in fact, a mere appearance bond complying in no respect with the terms of the statute prescribing the requisites of a recognizance or bond on appeal. See Code of Crim. Proc., Arts. 903 and 904; also Staten v. State, 93 Texas Crim Rep., 265, 246 S.W. Rep., 387 and cases therein collated.

The appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

Conviction is for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of one year.

The motion of the State to dismiss the appeal must be sustained for the reason that the document denominated a recognizance is, in fact, a mere appearance bond complying in no respect with the terms of the statute prescribing the requisites of a recognizance or bond on appeal. See Code of Crim. Proc., Arts. 903 and 904; also Staten v. State, 93 Texas Crim Rep., 265, 246 S.W. Rep., 387 and cases therein collated.

The appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

Daniel v. State, 255 S.W. 444, 95 Tex. Crim. 649, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 741 (Tex. 1923).

Pincite

255 S.W. 444 (Daniel v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related