Wells v. State

150 S.W. 1163, 68 Tex. Crim. 277, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 611
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided October 30, 1912·No. No. 1890.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

— Appellant was convicted of embezzlement and allotted two years in the penitentiary by the verdict of the jury.

*278 [Rehearing denied December, 1912. — Reporter.]

After Ms appeal was consummated he entered into an appeal bon d under the terms of Art. 904 of the Revised Code of Criminal Procedure, the'bond was properly approved by the Sheriff of McLennan County, but was not approved by the Judge who tried the case, Judge Monroe, but was approved by Judge Oltorf, signing himself as special Judge of the Fifty-fourth Judicial District of Falls County. The law requires that the Judge who tried the case shall approve the bond. See Art 904, supra. This would render the appeal bond insufficient and not in compliance with the statute. Appellant was released from custody on this bond. Under the law, as it is, the bond being insufficient, this appeal will be dismissed, and it is accordingly so ordered. Dismissed.

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

Wells v. State, 150 S.W. 1163, 68 Tex. Crim. 277, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 611 (Tex. 1912).

150 S.W. 1163 (Wells v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wallace v. State
138 S.W.2d 116 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1940)
Jones v. State
267 S.W. 985 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1924)
King v. State
203 S.W. 52 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1918)
Chumley v. State
201 S.W. 176 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1918)