Fortenberry v. State
89 S.W. 646, 48 Tex. Crim. 548, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 266
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fortenberry v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 47 Tex. Crim. 84 →
Opinions
The Assistant Attorney-General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the recognizance is defective, in that it does not state the amount of the punishment assessed against appellant. An examination of the recognizance shows that the motion is well taken. Art. 887, Code Crim. Proc.; May v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 196. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Dismissed.
ON REHEARING.
December 13, 1905.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fortenberry v. State, 89 S.W. 646, 48 Tex. Crim. 548, 1905 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 266 (Tex. 1905).
89 S.W. 646 (Fortenberry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
May v. State
49 S.W. 402 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1899)