Legal Opinion

Hendricks v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided June 15, 1932No. 15197PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The opinion states the case.

1Opinion of the Court

The offense is embezzlement; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for six years.

The recognizance recites that appellant "stands charged with the offense of embezzlement of $50.00 or over," but fails to show that appellant has been convicted. It is necessary that the recognizance or appeal bond show that the appellant has been convicted. Article 817, C. C. P.; Wilmering v. State,100 Tex. Crim. 169, 272 S.W. 463; Wall v. State,110 Tex. Crim. 116, 7 S.W.2d 958. Appellant being enlarged under a defective recognizance, this court is without jurisdiction. Rhea v. State, 101 Tex.Crim.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wilmering v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1925
  2. Rhea v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1925
  3. Wall v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1928

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. People v. PaivaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Ex Parte McCuneCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1952
  3. Ex Parte HuddlestonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1946
  4. Arambula v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1938
  5. Banks Stocks v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1943

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API