Smith v. State, 41000
| Decision Date | 24 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41000,41000 |
| Citation | 424 S.W.2d 228 |
| Parties | Edward SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
O'Connor & Brister, Lubbock, for appellant.
Fred E. West, Lubbock, Carson Smith and Jack Layne, Asst. Dist. Attys., Lubbock, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
OPINION
The offense is possession of wine in a dry area for the purpose of sale.
Trial was before the court on a plea of not guilty.
The judgment dated June 15, 1967, recites: but adjudges that the state 'recover of the Defendant Edward Smith the said fine of $350.00 and all costs * * *.'
Sentence pronounced September 13, 1967, recited that the punishment was assessed at a fine of $350.00, together with all costs * * * and remanded appellant to the custody of the sheriff 'to be confined until all such costs and fines are paid and said term of imprisonment has expired.'
The state moves that the appeal be dismissed. The only notice of appeal which is reflected by the record was that given in open court entered June 21, 1967, on which date bond on appeal was signed and approved.
Art. 44.08(c) Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. requires that notice of appeal in cases such as this be given or filed within 10 days after sentence is pronounced. Notice of appeal prior to sentence does not meet such requirement. Hollingsworth v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 419 S.W.2d 854.
The state's motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
On January 24, 1968, we dismissed the appeal in this cause for the reason that notice of appeal was given prior to sentence rather than within ten days after sentence was pronounced, as provided by Art. 44.08(c), V.A.C.C.P.
In our opinion dismissing the appeal, attention was directed to the recitation in the court's judgment assessing appellant's punishment at a fine in the amount of $35.00 and to another recitation in the judgment that the state recover of the appellant a fine of $350.00. Attention was also directed to the sentence pronounced by the court which recited that the punishment was assessed at a fine of $350.00.
By supplemental transcript it is now shown that on January 30, 1968, with permission of the court, granted under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cherb v. State
...with Art. 44.08(e), V.A.C.C.P., and that such notice has been given. Accordingly, the appeal is properly reinstated. Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 228 (1968); Herbort v. State, 422 S.W.2d 456 (Tex.Cr.App., The offense is burglary to commit theft. Trial was before a jury which set ......
-
Price v. State
...reliance on Ex parte Spaulding, 687 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), Smith v. State, 479 S.W.2d 680 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), Smith v. State, 424 S.W.2d 228 (Tex.Crim.App.1968), and Compian v. State, 363 S.W.2d 468 (Tex.Crim.App.1963) to show that the probation order in this case was "void at its......
-
Wilson v. State
...provided by law, this renders the judgment of conviction a nullity. Gonzales v. State, 527 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Smith v. State, 424 S.W.2d 228 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Clardy v. State, 415 S.W.2d 423 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Gassoway v. State, 385 S.W.2d 386 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); Compian v. State......
-
Ex parte Vestal
...to that time is invalid. Flores v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 419 S.W.2d 202; Herbort v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 456; Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 228. In Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S.Ct. 254, 19 L.Ed.2d 336, the United States Supreme Court held that the appointment of couns......