Dorris v. State

179 S.W. 718, 77 Tex. Crim. 620, 1915 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 150
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedOctober 27, 1915
DocketNo. 3738.
StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W. 718 (Dorris 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
Dorris v. State, 179 S.W. 718, 77 Tex. Crim. 620, 1915 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 150 (Tex. 1915).

Opinion

HARPER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of wife desertion, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $200 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of six months. .

The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal because the recognizance is not in compliance with the statute, and this motion must be sustained. May v. State, 49 S. W. Rep., 402; Johnson v. State, 49 S. W. Rep., 594.

But if the recognizance was sufficient to give this court jurisdiction the statement of facts does not show to have been presented to nor approved by the county judge, and we could not consider the paper alleged to be a statement of facts. The only complaint in the motion for a new trial relates to the failure of the court to give special charges requested. With no statement of facts we can consider it would be impossible for us to determine whether or not they or either of them' should have been given.

The appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

Related

May v. State
49 S.W. 402 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 S.W. 718, 77 Tex. Crim. 620, 1915 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorris-v-state-texcrimapp-1915.