Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

101 Tex. Crim. 367

275 S.W 1006

Chaves v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided February 18, 1925

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1925-02-18

<p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1932

6 state decisions

Relies on Chaney v. State · Ferrill v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1925-02-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Appellant was convicted in the district court of Reeves county of possessing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at one year in the penitentiary. *368

¶2The appeal bond is not signed by appellant. His name is signed thereto by his attorney of record. No attempt of any kind is made to show authority on the part of said attorney for such signature, even if it were permitted under Art. 321 of our C. C. P. which requires that such recognizance or bond shall be signed by the accused. This is also the effect of the decisions which are collated under said article in Mr. Vernon's C. C. P. See Chaney v. State, 23 Tex. 24; Ferrill v. State, 29 Tex. 489 [29 Tex. 489]. We further observe that appellant was tried in December 1923, and his bond is dated and approved in January 1923. We also note that the description of the offense in said bond is insufficient. "Possession of 1 qt. of liquor for sale" is not the equivalent for "Possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale."

¶3For the insufficience of the bond the appeal will be dismissed.

¶4Appeal Dismissed.

¶5

ON MOTION TO RE-INSTATE APPEAL.

/101/texcrim/367 · .json · Public domain