Hendricks v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
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
- Wilmering v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Rhea v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Wall v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1928
3Cited by6 opinions
- People v. PaivaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Ex Parte McCuneCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1952
- Ex Parte HuddlestonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1946
- Arambula v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1938
- Banks Stocks v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.