Stanley v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Stanley v. State

173 S.W.2d 555, 146 Tex. Crim. 288, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 572

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 9, 1943

DocketNo. 22501.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 S.W.2d 555 (Stanley 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

Stanley v. State, 173 S.W.2d 555, 146 Tex. Crim. 288, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 572 (Tex. 1943).

Pincite

Opinions

The offense is forgery. The punishment is assessed at confinement in the State penitentiary for a term of two years.

The record is before us without a recognizance or an appeal bond. There is, however, a copy from the trial court's docket in the record which shows that appellant entered into a recognizance with S. T. Stanley and G. M. Neuburn as sureties. This is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court because the same was not entered on the minutes of the court. See Maxey v. State, 55 S.W. 823; Kounce v. State, 60 S.W. 966. Since the record fails to show that a recognizance was entered upon the minutes of the court during term time or to contain a certificate showing that the appellant is confined in jail, the appeal is dismissed. *Page 290

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

ON MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL.

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

The offense is forgery. The punishment is assessed at confinement in the State penitentiary for a term of two years.

The record is before us without a recognizance or an appeal bond. There is, however, a copy from the trial court's docket in the record which shows that appellant entered into a recognizance with S. T. Stanley and G. M. Neuburn as sureties. This is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court because the same was not entered on the minutes of the court. See Maxey v. State, 55 S.W. 823; Kounce v. State, 60 S.W. 966. Since the record fails to show that a recognizance was entered upon the minutes of the court during term time or to contain a certificate showing that the appellant is confined in jail, the appeal is dismissed. *Page 290

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

ON MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.W.2d 555, 146 Tex. Crim. 288, 1943 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-state-texcrimapp-1943.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack