245 S.W. 683 | Tex. Crim. App. | 1922
Lead Opinion
Motion is presented by the Assistant Attorney General to dismiss the appeal because of defective appeal bond. The trial term of court adjourned March 3d. The appeal bond was not filed until April 6th. It is approved by the sheriff only. Article 904, C.C.P., requires such bonds to be approved by both the sheriff and trial judge. Hanson v. State (No. 6958, opinion May 10th, 1922); Williams v. State (No. 7068, opinion November 1, 1922). As we understand Article 904, supra, the bond should state specifically of what offense accused stands charged and of what offense convicted, and a mere recital therein that it was of a "felony" does not comply with the statute. We observe in the record a motion for certiorari asking that certain bills of exception refused by the trial judge be ordered placed in the transcript. The motion is in effect a contention that accused has been deprived of his bills of exception, and appears *154
to depend on the order of the trial judge granting sixty days after adjournment for filing, when it is asserted by appellant that he was promised ninety days. This is controverted by the State. On account of the necessity to dismiss the appeal we have not gone into the merits of the other controversy; but it appears to be an effort to attack in this court by affidavit an order and judgment entered by the trial court. If the extension was for ninety days and by mistake was entered for sixty days only, then the proper practice would be by motion in the lower court to correct the order. (See Bennett v. State,
The appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.
Addendum
Appellant files his motion for rehearing herein contending that while the bail bond for appeal herein has not upon it the approval of the trial judge, that the said judge in a telephone conversation with the deputy sheriff of the county in which the trial was had told said officer that he would approve the bond, and that upon such statement the appellant was released from custody. Affidavits of appellant's counsel and said deputy sheriff are offered in support of this contention. This court does not try questions like this upon affidavit. The statutory provision regarding the approval of the trial court is plain and apparently mandatory. If appellant was released following such telephone conversation and before the bond was in terms approved by the trial court, such release was without warrant of law. Appellant's motion for rehearing presents no meritorious reason why same should be granted. It is ordered that said motion be overruled.
Overruled.
