Tarkenton v. State

135 S.W.2d 716, 138 Tex. Crim. 292, 1939 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 648
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 29, 1939
DocketNo. 20,595.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 135 S.W.2d 716 (Tarkenton 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
Tarkenton v. State, 135 S.W.2d 716, 138 Tex. Crim. 292, 1939 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 648 (Tex. 1939).

Opinions

Conviction is for attempting to pass a forged instrument, punishment being two years in the penitentiary.

The original transcript failed to show any notice of appeal as required by Art. 827 C. C. P. By a supplemental transcript now before us there is shown a "docket entry" by the trial judge stating that notice of appeal was given, but it does not appear that such order was carried into the court's minutes. It has been held many times that the docket entry is not a "record" entry as required by Art. 827. See 4 Tex. Jur., Sec. 123, p. 172, and cases there cited; also Lenox v. State,55 Tex. Crim. 259, 116 S.W. 816; Haynie v. State, 92 Tex. Crim. 45,241 S.W. 478; Bryson v. State, 20 S.W.2d 1047; Thackerson v. State, 26 S.W.2d 241.

The appeal is dismissed.

ON APPELLANT'S MOTION TO REINSTATE THE APPEAL.

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

Related

Griffith v. State
354 S.W.2d 942 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1962)
Lieb v. State
288 S.W.2d 110 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1955)
Ash v. State
202 S.W.2d 849 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1947)
Tyson v. State
154 S.W.2d 477 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 S.W.2d 716, 138 Tex. Crim. 292, 1939 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarkenton-v-state-texcrimapp-1939.