Martoni v. State
166 S.W. 1169, 74 Tex. Crim. 64, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 600
Opinions
On motion of the Assistant Attorney General this appeal will have to be dismissed. The recognizance fails to specify the amount of the punishment imposed in the trial court. This is a statutory requirement, without which the recognizance will not be sufficient. For this reason the motion will be sustained and the appeal dismissed.
Dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Martoni v. State, 166 S.W. 1169, 74 Tex. Crim. 64, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 600 (Tex. 1914).
166 S.W. 1169 (Martoni v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
in the Interest of E.L.Y., a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002
State v. Campbell
820 S.W.2d 44 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
State v. Christopher Campbell
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991
Kutner v. Russell
658 S.W.2d 585 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Government of Virgin Islands v. Rodriguez
300 F. Supp. 860 (Virgin Islands, 1969)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1961
Ex Parte Jones
81 S.W.2d 706 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Benson v. State
247 S.W. 510 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Mosley v. State
198 S.W. 146 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1917)
King v. State
181 S.W. 736 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1916)