Jeter v. State

• Decision Date: 16 April 1894
• Citation: 26 S.W. 49
• Parties: JETER v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

26 S.W. 49

JETER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 16, 1894.

Certified question from court of civil appeals of fourth supreme judicial district.

In the matter of the state of Texas against C. E. Jeter. Question certified from the court of civil appeals.

T. J. McMinn, for appellant. C. A. Culberson, Atty. Gen., and Frank Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, J.

The court of civil appeals for the fourth supreme judicial district has certified to this court the following statement and question: "The judgment was by the district court of Bexar county on a forfeited bail bond given in a criminal proceeding against C. E. Jeter and his sureties in the sum $1,000, the judgment final being rendered on the 25th day of November, 1893, and the appeal has been taken to this court." "Question: Has the court of civil appeals jurisdiction of appeals in such cases?" This is a criminal case, within the meaning of the constitution and laws of the state, and the court of civil appeals has no jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment rendered in such proceeding. The supreme court of this state has decided that a proceeding for the forfeiture of a bail bond is a criminal case. Gay v. State, 20 Tex. 504; Aber v. Warden, 49 Tex. 377. The court of appeals, as then organized, with criminal and civil jurisdiction, also held that the proceeding was a criminal case, and that the state had no right of appeal from such a judgment. Cassaday v. State, 4 Tex. App. 99; State v. Ward, 9 Tex. App. 462; Hart v. State, 13 Tex. App. 555; Perry v. State, 14 Tex. App. 166. Appellant urges that since the adoption of the amendment by which the courts of civil appeals were created, and the court of appeals as it formerly existed is restricted to appeals in criminal cases, the ruling should be changed. This position is not sound, because, as it was then organized, the court of appeals had jurisdiction of civil cases only which were appealed from the county courts, and of criminal cases from the district and county courts. If it was a civil case, then the court of appeals as then organized would not have jurisdiction of the appeals from judgments entered upon forfeited bail bonds in the district court. The decisions heretofore made in the courts of appeals and the supreme court were made with reference to the criminal jurisdiction of the several courts as then organized, and there is no material difference, so far as it affects this question, in the jurisdiction conferred upon the several courts then and now. Under the present constitution and laws, the courts of civil appeals have appellate jurisdiction only of civil cases, combining the jurisdiction before vested in the court of appeals and the supreme court in such cases. The court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction of all appeals in criminal cases where appeal is allowed from either county court, district court, or criminal district courts. In Aber v. Warden, Justice Gould, delivering the opinion of the court, gives these satisfactory reasons for the decision: "The enforcement of such bonds was regarded as incidental to the criminal case in which they are given, and our opinion is that the question in this case is too closely connected with the judgment on the bail bond to be separable from it." Gay v. State was an appeal from a judgment on a bail bond in a criminal case, and Judge Wheeler, for the court, said: "A suit on a forfeited recognizance conditioned for a party's appearance to answer to an indictment, it has been held, is...