Nesbit v. State, 29119
| Decision Date | 29 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 29119,29119 |
| Citation | 165 Tex.Crim. 336,306 S.W.2d 901 |
| Parties | Roosevelt NESBIT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Roberson L. King, Carl A. Williams, Jr., Houston, for appellant.
Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is the unlawful possession of barbiturates; the punishment, one year in jail and a fine of $1,000.
Appellant's motion for new trial was overruled on February 15, 1957, which was during the February term of the trial court, and notice of appeal was given on that date.
The record reflects that appellant is at large on an appeal bond dated and approved February 15, 1957.
An appeal bond entered into before the expiration of the term at which the conviction was had and notice of appeal was given does not comply with the statute, Art. 830 Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., and does not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to enter any order other than to dismiss the appeal. Fowler v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 450, 228 S.W.2d 512.
Appellant is granted fifteen days in which to file a proper appeal bond and move to reinstate the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
Proper bond on appeal having been entered into, the appeal is reinstated.
According to the officers who testified for the State, while they were searching appellant's home for narcotics by virtue of a search warrant, one of them found five tablets in a dresser drawer of the bedroom.
The chemist, whose qualifications were stipulated, testified that he used a part of four of these tablets for analysis purposes and determined that they contained a derivative of barbituric acid; that the only drug he knew of that would stimulate and prevent the hypnotic effect of barbituric acid would be the amphetomine group and there was no amphetomine in the tablets.
It was appellant's testimony that the tablets were not found in his bedroom and that the only tablets such as those the officer produced which he ever possessed he received from the Veterans' Hospital for the purpose of medication.
The pharmacist at the Veterans' Hospital, who testified as a defense witness, stated that the hospital records showed but one medication given to appellant and that was capsules, not tablets.
The jury resolved the disputed issue of fact against appellant and the evidence sustains their verdict.
The complaint regarding the court's charge is not before us, there being no objection or requested charge in writing, as required by Arts. 658 and 659, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. C.C.P.
The sole question remaining is the contention that the statute is unconstitutional.
Art. 726c, Vernon's Ann.P.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State, 40257
...as to objections to the court's charge under Art. 658 of the code. Outley v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 314, 284 S.W.2d 356; Nesbit v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 306 S.W.2d 901; Cedillo v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 371, 307 S.W.2d 267; Waite v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 484, 334 S.W.2d 816; Rodriguez v. Sta......
-
Brown v. State
...for any person to possess a barbiturate. This Court's holding in Browning v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 273, 276 S.W.2d 522; Nesbit v. State, Tex.Cr.App, 306 S.W.2d 901; and Ex parte Engel, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 95, 253 S.W.2d 430, supports the State's position that the right of a manufacturer or other p......
-
McGruder v. State, 36612
...a requested charge, appellant's complaint to the court's failure to submit such a charge to the jury is not before us. Nesbit v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 306 S.W.2d 901; Morgan v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 341 S.W.2d 438; Mendez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 362 S.W.2d At the hearing on the motion for ......
-
Fleming v. State, 31023
...appellant presented any objections or requested charge to the court in writing as required by Arts. 658 and 659, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Nesbit v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 306 S.W.2d 901; Cedillo v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 307 S.W.2d 267; and Outley v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 314, 284 S.W.2d The judgment i......