Home/Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas/Hendricks v. State

Hendricks v. State

55 S.W.2d 839, 122 Tex. Crim. 429, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 761
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided June 15, 1932·No. No. 15197.·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

The offense is embezzlement; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for six years.

The recognizance recites that appellant "stands charged with the offense of embezzlement of $50.00 or over," but fails to show that appellant has been convicted. It is necessary that the recognizance or appeal bond show that the appellant has been convicted. Article 817, C. C. P.; Wilmering v. State,100 Tex. Crim. 169, 272 S.W. 463; Wall v. State,110 Tex. Crim. 116, 7 S.W.2d 958. Appellant being enlarged under a defective recognizance, this court is without jurisdiction. Rhea v. State, 101 Tex.Crim. Rep.,275 S.W. 1021; Wall v. State, supra.

The appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

ON MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL.

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

Hendricks v. State, 55 S.W.2d 839, 122 Tex. Crim. 429, 1932 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 761 (Tex. 1932).

55 S.W.2d 839 (Hendricks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte McCune
246 S.W.2d 171 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1952)
People v. Paiva
190 P.2d 604 (California Supreme Court, 1948)
Ex Parte Huddleston
194 S.W.2d 401 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1946)
Banks Stocks v. State
179 S.W.2d 305 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1943)
Arambula v. State
112 S.W.2d 738 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1938)
Ex Parte Miers
64 S.W.2d 778 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1933)