Gray v. State

239 S.W. 953, 91 Tex. Crim. 484, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 258
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 15, 1922
DocketNo. 6684.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 S.W. 953 (Gray 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
Gray v. State, 239 S.W. 953, 91 Tex. Crim. 484, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 258 (Tex. 1922).

Opinions

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

—The conviction is for misdemeanor theft. The recognizance concludes with these words: “. . . to abide the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas.

It. is incomplete in that it omits the words: “in this ease.”

The purpose of the recognizance is that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals will be performed 'in the particular case in which the recognizance is made. In a number of instances, it has been necessary to dismiss the appeal because of the same omission as that apparent in the present instance. Bodkins v. State, 75 Texas Crim. Rep., 499; 172 S. W. Rep., 217; Branch’s Ann. Texas Penal Code, p. 315, sec. 620.

The motion made by the State to dismiss the appeal must be sustained.

Dismissed.

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

Related

Putty v. State
70 S.W.2d 732 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1932)
Fogel v. State
50 S.W.2d 333 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 S.W. 953, 91 Tex. Crim. 484, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-state-texcrimapp-1922.