Tafolla v. State
This text of 166 S.W. 508 (Tafolla 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.
Opinion
Upon a final disposition of the appeal in this case execution was issued by the clerk of this court to collect the cost incidental to the appeal. The mandate and execution were forwarded to the county from which the case was appealed, Bexar county. Appellant files a motion to withdraw and recall the execution for reasons stated in the motion; the general proposition being that his sureties are not responsible on the recognizance on appeal for costs. We deem it unnecessary to enter into any elaborate discussion of the question, as it has been several times heretofore decided, especially in the Arbuthnot Case, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 509, 34 S. W. 269, 43 S. W. 1024. See, also, Bonn v. State, 12 Tex. App. 100; Prater v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 18, 111 S. W. 735. These cases decide the question adversely to appellant’s contention.
On the authority of these cases the motion to recall the execution will be denied, and it is accordingly so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
166 S.W. 508, 72 Tex. Crim. 185, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tafolla-v-state-texcrimapp-1914.