Mangold v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Mangold v. State

119 S.W. 846, 56 Tex. Crim. 274, 1909 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 235

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 19, 1909

DocketNo. 4079.

StatusPublished

This text of 119 S.W. 846 (Mangold 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

Mangold v. State, 119 S.W. 846, 56 Tex. Crim. 274, 1909 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 235 (Tex. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of four months.

The Assistant Attorney-General moves the court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record shows that defendant excepted to the order overruling the motion for a new trial and gives notice of appeal. The order should have stated that he gave notice of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The order fails to show this statement, and therefore the Assistant Attorney-General’s motion must prevail. Appellant’s counsel, however, files a motion here to correct the judgment nunc pro tunc, claiming it was a clerical error on the part of the clerk and affidavits as well to support this contention, but this is a matter we can not review. We only have jurisdiction of cases as they are appealed here as authorized by the statutes of this State.

The motion of the Assistant Attorney-General is sustained, and the appeal is ordered dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of four months.

The Assistant Attorney-General moves the court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record shows that defendant excepted to the order overruling the motion for a new trial and gives notice of appeal. The order should have stated that he gave notice of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The order fails to show this statement, and therefore the Assistant Attorney-General’s motion must prevail. Appellant’s counsel, however, files a motion here to correct the judgment nunc pro tunc, claiming it was a clerical error on the part of the clerk and affidavits as well to support this contention, but this is a matter we can not review. We only have jurisdiction of cases as they are appealed here as authorized by the statutes of this State.

The motion of the Assistant Attorney-General is sustained, and the appeal is ordered dismissed.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.W. 846, 56 Tex. Crim. 274, 1909 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangold-v-state-texcrimapp-1909.