Smith v. State

244 S.W. 511, 92 Tex. Crim. 436, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 504

Opinion

HAWKINS, Judge.

— Conviction is for drunkenness in a public place.

Our Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. He calls attention to the fact that the caption to the transcript fails to show the date of adjournment of the term of court at which the conviction was had. Under the authority of Mandosa v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 84, 225 S. W. Rep., 169; Davis v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 183, 225 S. W. Rep., 532; Williams v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 115, 237 S. W. Rep., 920, this should appear. The reasons' are apparent from the cases cited.

We would also call attention to the appeal bond. It does not comply as to conditions, with the form of recognizance prescribed by Art. 919, C. C. P. The conditions should be the same whether the obligation be a bond or recognizance. It does not comply with Acts of Legislature, 1919, Ch. 18, See. 1, (Art. 918 C. C. P.) in that the bond was approved by the clerk whereas in misdemeanor cases the appeal bond must be approved by either the sheriff or the judge. Sweak v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 372, 239 S. W. Rep., 615 Sheridan v. State, 92 Texas Crim. Rep., 53, 241 S. W. Rep., 477.

If we understand the record before us the prosecution originated in the Corporation Court and was appealed to the County Court-where the fine assessed was only twenty dollars. If such is the history of the case no appeal would lie to this court. Arts. 86 and 87, C. C. P.,

The appeal must be dismissed. .

Dismissed.