Hurt v. State

243 S.W. 989, 92 Tex. Crim. 347, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 465
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided February 15, 1922·No. No. 6683.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

Conviction is for keeping a bawdy house.

A motion is made by the State to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the recognizance is incomplete in failing to show that the parties thereto bound themselves to abide the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals "in this case." The recognizance found in the record omits the essential concluding words in the recognizance, that is, it omits the words "in this case." The same point has been passed on on many occasions. Cryer v. State, 36 Tex.Crim. Rep.; and other cases listed in Branch's Ann. Texas Penal Code, Sec. 620.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

Dismissed.

June 21, 1922.

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

Hurt v. State, 243 S.W. 989, 92 Tex. Crim. 347, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 465 (Tex. 1922).

243 S.W. 989 (Hurt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burlingame v. State
123 S.W.2d 359 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1939)
Spears v. State
123 S.W.2d 674 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1938)