Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 S.W.2d 527

Zepeda v. State

Decided April 18, 1928

Relies on 87 Tex. Crim. 119 - Hale v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1928-04-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1998

9 state decisions

6019281930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*474 HAWKINS, Judge.

¶1 Appellant entered a plea of guilty to possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. His punishment was assessed at one year in the penitentiary and suspended sentence denied.

¶2 The trial term of court adjourned the 17th day of September, appellant’s motion for new trial having been overruled and notice of appeal given on the 16th day of September. Appellant did not enter into recognizance during the term of court in order to secure his enlargement pending appeal, but on the same day his motion was overruled and while court was still in session he executed an appeal bond to effect his enlargement. This court acquires no jurisdiction of an appeal where an appeal bond is filed during the trial term of court. Art. 818, C. C. P.; Lang v. State, 80 Tex. Crim. Rep. 272, 190 S. W. 146; Hale v. State, 87 Tex. Crim. Rep. 119, 219 S. W. 1097. (Other authorities will be found collated under note 3, Art. 818, Vernon’s C. C. P., Vol. 3.)

¶3 The matter mentioned will necessitate the dismissal of the appeal. We take note, however, that the appeal bond is approved by the sheriff only. If otherwise regular it would be non-effective for lacking the approval of the trial judge. Art. 818, C. C. P., requires approval of both the judge and the sheriff.

¶4 We observe that only one bill of exception appears in the record. It was not filed until the 4th day of December. In the absence of an order granting additional time, appellant had only thirty days in which to file bills of exception. No additional time was granted because the bill was filed too late.

¶5 The appeal is dismissed.

¶6 Dismissed.

/7/sw2d/527 · .json · Public domain