
    SEEBOLD v. STATE.
    (No. 7279.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 28, 1923.)
    1. Bail <&wkey;67 — Court held sufficiently designated in “recognizance.”
    A recognizance, reciting that conviction occurred in and binding accused to appear before “this” court immediately following the minutes showing the beginning of the regular term of a designated court, held sufficient as against the objection that it failed to state the court in which conviction occurred and before which defendant was required to appear; a recognizance being an obligation entered into in open court and carried into the minutes thereof.
    [Ed. Note. — For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series-, Recognizance.]
    2. Bail (&wkey;65 — Recognizance on appeal in> felony case need not state punishment.
    Code Or. Proe. 1911, art. 903, does not require that a recognizance on appeal in a felony case state the punishment assessed.
    3. Bail <S=372 — Error of clerk, in entering appeal recognizance, in following form of appearance recognizance, properly corrected by judge.
    Where the clerk in entering appeal recognizance taken in the form prescribed by Code Cr. Proe. 1911, art 903, erroneously followed the form of an appearance recognizance, the correct form of recognizance was properly prepared by the judge and entered in the minutes, though neither principal nor sureties .were present, and a final judgment entered thereon.
    Appeal from District Court, Parker County ; F. O. McKinsey, Judge.
    Proceedings to forfeit a recognizance given by Guy Seebold, on appeal from a conviction of theft. From a judgment of forfeiture, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Mays & Mays, of Fort Worth, and F. M. Chaney, of Dallas, for appellant.
    Jim L. McCall, Co. Atty., and Fred R. Cot-ten, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Weatherford, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

From a final judgment forfeiting a recognizance, this appeal is taken.

The record shows that an indictment was filed in the district court of Parker county charging Guy Seebold with theft of personal property over the value of $50; that he was convicted and his punishment assessed at three years’ confinement in the penitentiary; that motion for new trial was overruled, sentence pronounced, an appeal taken to this court, and the judgment affirmed. Seebold had disappeared and a forfeiture was taken •on the following recognizance:

“The State of Texas v. Guy Seebold. No. 4026. Defendant’s Recognizance. October 30, A. D. 1920. This day came into open court Guy Seebold, defendant in the above-entitled cause, who, with B. W. Henderson and J. J. Niece, sureties, acknowledge themselves jointly and severally indebted to the state of Texas in the sum of $1,250.00 conditioned that, the said Guy Seebold, who stands charged with the offense of theft of personal property over the value of fifty dollars, a felony, in this court, and who has been convicted of said offense in this court, shall appear before this court from •day to day and from term to term, and not depart therefrom without leave of this court in order to abide a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas in this case.”

It is urged that the recognizance was insufficient: (1) In failing to show what punishment was assessed; (2) that it failed to state the court in which the conviction occurred ; (3) that it failed to show what court the defendant was required to appear before to answer the conditions of the bond. In the minutes of the court appears the following •entry:

“Be it remembered that on this 4th day of October, A. D. 1920, there was begun and hold-on a regular term of the district court in and: for Parker county, Texas, at the courthouse thereof in the city of Weatherford, Texas. Present and presiding Hon. E. O. McKinsey,1 judge of said court, E. H. Grindstaff, county attorney, John R. Brown, sheriff, G. W. Buchanan, district clerk and M. Scougale, court reporter, when the following proceedings were had, to wit:”

And then immediately follows the recognizance copied above.

There is no merit in any of the objections urged. A recognizance is an obligation entered into in open court and carried into the minutes of the court as any other proceeding therein. The recitals in the recognizance that the conviction occurred in this court, and binding accused to appear before this court, 'leave no ambiguity about the matter. Bennett v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 422, 239 S. W. 951; Scoggins v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 424, 244 S. W. 535. What we have said regarding recognizances would not be applicable to bonds executed to effect liberation of accused pending appeal, because such bonds are no part of-the court minutes. It is not necessary for a recognizance on appeal in a felony case to state the punishment assessed. Article 903, C. C. P., does not require it. Ex parte Cochrain, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 297, 243 S. W. 465.

It is insisted- that judgment final should not have been entered upon the recognizance in question because another recognizance with different conditions appears in the court minutes. When the recognizance was entered into, it was taken in the form prescribed by article 903, C. C. P.; but the clerk in entering it on the' minutes followed a form for an appearance recognizance instead of the one prescribed on appeal. Before approving the minutes, the judge discovered the clerk’s error and prepared the proper form of recognizance, which the clerk then entered in the minutes. The first one was not approved. There was no error in this proceeding. It was not necessary for the principal or sureties to be present when the minutes were corrected to speak ttíe truth.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      <®E5>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     