Switzer v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Switzer v. State

134 S.W. 705, 61 Tex. Crim. 206, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 58

DecidedFebruary 8, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.W. 705 (Switzer 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

Switzer v. State, 134 S.W. 705, 61 Tex. Crim. 206, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 58 (Tex. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Potter county of violating the local option law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and 60 days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal herein, on the ground that the recognizance is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction. An inspection of that part of the record discloses that the motion is well taken. The motion to dismiss is predicated on the ground that the recognizance herein does not recite, as the statute requires, that appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, nor does it recite the amount of his punishment. The form provided requires that this be stated, and we know of no authority to dispense with these requirements.

The motion of the Assistant Attorney General is accordingly sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.

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

HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Potter county of violating the local option law, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and 60 days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal herein, on the ground that the recognizance is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction. An inspection of that part of the record discloses that the motion is well taken. The motion to dismiss is predicated on the ground that the recognizance herein does not recite, as the statute requires, that appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, nor does it recite the amount of his punishment. The form provided requires that this be stated, and we know of no authority to dispense with these requirements.

The motion of the Assistant Attorney General is accordingly sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.W. 705, 61 Tex. Crim. 206, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/switzer-v-state-texcrimapp-1911.