Sprinkle v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Sprinkle v. State

244 S.W. 1004, 92 Tex. Crim. 590, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 574

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 15, 1922

DocketNo. 7373.

StatusPublished

This text of 244 S.W. 1004 (Sprinkle 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

Sprinkle v. State, 244 S.W. 1004, 92 Tex. Crim. 590, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 574 (Tex. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Taylor county of murder, and his punishment fixed at twenty years in the penitentiary.

This case is before us in an unusual situation. It appears from the affidavit of the sheriff, which is made a part of the record herein, that after conviction and sentence and pending appeal, appellant escaped from the Taylor county jail on the 7th day of May, 1920, and that during the month of May, 1922, he was recaptured and is now in custody. Appellant having escaped from the custody of the officers and not having been retaken or voluntarily returned to such custody within ten days after such escape, it becomes imperative under our statute that the appeal be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Dismissed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Taylor county of murder, and his punishment fixed at twenty years in the penitentiary.

This case is before us in an unusual situation. It appears from the affidavit of the sheriff, which is made a part of the record herein, that after conviction and sentence and pending appeal, appellant escaped from the Taylor county jail on the 7th day of May, 1920, and that during the month of May, 1922, he was recaptured and is now in custody. Appellant having escaped from the custody of the officers and not having been retaken or voluntarily returned to such custody within ten days after such escape, it becomes imperative under our statute that the appeal be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 S.W. 1004, 92 Tex. Crim. 590, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sprinkle-v-state-texcrimapp-1922.