Doky v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Doky v. State

130 S.W. 1001, 60 Tex. Crim. 56, 1910 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 408

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided May 25, 1910·No. No. 638.·Published

Opinion

McCORD, Judge.

The Assistant Attorney-General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because of a defective recognizance. This motion will have to be sustained. The recognizance fails to state what was the punishment assessed against the appellant in the court below, the language being as follows: “Conditioned, that the said Melvin Doky, who has been convicted in this case of a misdemeanor and his punishment assessed at-as more fully appears by the judgment of conviction duly entered in this cause.” The recognizance must state the punishment assessed in the court below.

The recognizance being defective the case is, therefore, hereby dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

McCORD, Judge.

The Assistant Attorney-General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because of a defective recognizance. This motion will have to be sustained. The recognizance fails to state what was the punishment assessed against the appellant in the court below, the language being as follows: “Conditioned, that the said Melvin Doky, who has been convicted in this case of a misdemeanor and his punishment assessed at-as more fully appears by the judgment of conviction duly entered in this cause.” The recognizance must state the punishment assessed in the court below.

The recognizance being defective the case is, therefore, hereby dismissed.

Dismissed.

Doky v. State, 130 S.W. 1001, 60 Tex. Crim. 56, 1910 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 408 (Tex. 1910).

Pincite

130 S.W. 1001 (Doky v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.