Osborne v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Osborne v. State

271 S.W. 612, 100 Tex. Crim. 293, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 450

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 10, 1925

DocketNo. 8512.

StatusPublished

This text of 271 S.W. 612 (Osborne 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

Osborne v. State, 271 S.W. 612, 100 Tex. Crim. 293, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 450 (Tex. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Judge. —

After expiration of the- time allowed, appellants present a motion to reinstate their appeal, in connection with which they exhibit what purports to be a new appeal bond in lieu of the one hteld to be- defective. Attached to the motion are affidavits by which it is sought to excuse the delay in filing the motion. We have examined them and in our opinion the matters therein stated do not furnish sufficient reasons to excuse such delay.

The State calls attention to the fact that the original bond was filed too late, and that under such circumstances, even if not defective, it would have been insufficient to perfect an appeal, and therefore this is not a case where the appeal can later be perfected by filing a new bond. The trial court adjourned on the 27th day of October. The appeal bond should have been filed within twenty days after adjournment. (Art. 2084, R. C. S.) It was not filed until the 17th day of November, being one day too late. There seems to be force in the State’s contention. Harvey v. Cummings, 62 Texas Rep. 186; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Midland Mercantile Co., 181 S. W. Rep. 270. However, we mention, this only in passing, as the motion to reinstate may be disposed of upon the first ground stated. -

The motion is overruled.

Overruled.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Judge. —

After expiration of the- time allowed, appellants present a motion to reinstate their appeal, in connection with which they exhibit what purports to be a new appeal bond in lieu of the one hteld to be- defective. Attached to the motion are affidavits by which it is sought to excuse the delay in filing the motion. We have examined them and in our opinion the matters therein stated do not furnish sufficient reasons to excuse such delay.

The State calls attention to the fact that the original bond was filed too late, and that under such circumstances, even if not defective, it would have been insufficient to perfect an appeal, and therefore this is not a case where the appeal can later be perfected by filing a new bond. The trial court adjourned on the 27th day of October. The appeal bond should have been filed within twenty days after adjournment. (Art. 2084, R. C. S.) It was not filed until the 17th day of November, being one day too late. There seems to be force in the State’s contention. Harvey v. Cummings, 62 Texas Rep. 186; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Midland Mercantile Co., 181 S. W. Rep. 270. However, we mention, this only in passing, as the motion to reinstate may be disposed of upon the first ground stated. -

The motion is overruled.

Overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 S.W. 612, 100 Tex. Crim. 293, 1925 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-state-texcrimapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack