Nichols v. State, 19906.
Decision Date | 09 November 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 19906.,19906. |
Parties | NICHOLS v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Jones County Court; Omar T. Burleson, Judge.
H. Nichols was convicted for swindling, and he appeals.
Reversed and cause remanded.
R. E. Rodgers, of Hamlin, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction is for swindling; punishment is assessed at confinement in the county jail for thirty days.
An examination of the record fails to show that notice of appeal was given as required by law. Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. art. 827. Such is necessary to give this court jurisdiction. See Branch's Annotated Penal Code, Sec. 588, p. 302 and cases there cited.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
On the Merits.
On a former day we dismissed the appeal in the case because of a defective record. The record has been perfected and the case will now be considered by us on its merits.
It was charged in the information, omitting the formal parts, that:
The proof shows that on or about the 6th day of November, 1935, the appellant and L. F. Gleason, the father of T. L. Gleason, met in the town of Hamlin; that appellant told Gleason that he desired to buy a cow or yearling fat enough for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Perkins v. State
...of negligence, it was necessary for the State to specify in the information which it would rely upon. Compare Nichols v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 41, 44, 123 S.W.2d 672, 673 (1939); Seiffert v. State, 501 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). The appellant was entitled to notice of the 'exact natu......
-
Seiffert v. State
...acting collectively as agents for Bacor, became indebted to bank in that amount. Under the rule laid down in Nichols v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 41, 123 S.W.2d 672, 673 (1939), 'appellant was entitled to know the exact nature of the accusation against him so that he might know what the state wo......
-
Card v. State, 25283
...Texas.' Williams v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 386, 39 S.W.2d 79; Reese v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 582, 44 S.W.2d 679; and Nichols v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 41, 123 S.W.2d 672. Because of the variance between the allegation and the proof the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is ...