Opinion

Jones v. State

99 Tex. Crim. 50 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 24, 1924

Full text

Alex Jones v. the State

Opinions in this case

Majority — Morrow
Addendum — Morrow

MORROW, Presiding Judge. The offense is assault to murder; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of three years. We. find no recognizance in the record. There is an appeal bond, which is approved by the sheriff but not by the district judge. The law requires the approval of both. See Art. 904, C. C. P.; Brown v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 55; Wells v. State, 150 S. W. Rep., 1163; Chumley v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 54; King v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 304; Johnson v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 376; Gray v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 1; Hunt v. State, 82 Texas Crim. Rep., 471. In the absence of a recognizance or an appeal bond approved as the law requires, this court is without jurisdiction to pass on the merits of the case. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Dismissed.

Williamson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 18, 1984

Smith v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 15, 1967

Ballard v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 9, 1938

Franks v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 17, 1931

Robinson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 1, 1930

Shaw v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 23, 1929

Baker v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 22, 1929

Davis v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 19, 1928

Perkins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 12, 1927

Gonzales v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 12, 1927

Parentheticals

"Assuming ... [the defendant] used the language and pursued the course of conduct attributed to him by the State's witness, to our minds it does not support that it was his purpose to provoke an attack from Butts in order that it might be made a pretext for killing him."
Smith v. State
“Assuming ... [the defendant] used the language and pursued the course of conduct attributed to him by the State’s witness, to our minds it does not support that it was his purpose to provoke an attack from Butts in order that it might be made a pretext for killing him.”
Smith v. State