Ortiz v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ortiz v. State

269 S.W. 1046, 99 Tex. Crim. 325, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 137

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided March 11, 1925·No. No. 9226.·Published

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

The conviction is for possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

By the terms of Article 903, C. C. P., one of the requisites of a recognizance bond pending appeal from 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.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

The conviction is for possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

By the terms of Article 903, C. C. P., one of the requisites of a recognizance bond pending appeal from 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.

Ortiz v. State, 269 S.W. 1046, 99 Tex. Crim. 325, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 137 (Tex. 1925).

Pincite

269 S.W. 1046 (Ortiz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.