Ortiz v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ortiz v. State

269 S.W. 1046, 99 Tex. Crim. 348, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 155

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 11, 1925

DocketNo. 9227.

StatusPublished

This text of 269 S.W. 1046 (Ortiz 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

Ortiz v. State, 269 S.W. 1046, 99 Tex. Crim. 348, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 155 (Tex. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

The conviction is for selling intoxicatings liquor; punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

*349 By the terms of Article 903, C. C. P., one of the requisites of a recognizance or bond pending appeal from a conviction for felony is that the offense of which accused was charged and convicted shall be described. In the present case it is stated in the recognizance that appellant was charged and convicted of the offense of violation of the prohibition law. ” There is no such offense as this known to our statutes.

Because of this defect in the recognizance the appeal is ordered dismissed.

Dismissed.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

The conviction is for selling intoxicatings liquor; punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

*349 By the terms of Article 903, C. C. P., one of the requisites of a recognizance or bond pending appeal from a conviction for felony is that the offense of which accused was charged and convicted shall be described. In the present case it is stated in the recognizance that appellant was charged and convicted of the offense of violation of the prohibition law. ” There is no such offense as this known to our statutes.

Because of this defect in the recognizance the appeal is ordered dismissed.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 S.W. 1046, 99 Tex. Crim. 348, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-state-texcrimapp-1925.