
    STANFORD v. STATE.
    (No. 8978.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 14 and
    March 4, 1925.)
    1. Bail &wkey;66 — Appeal dismissed where recognizance did not contain recital that accused was convicted of any offense.
    Where recognizance as contained in record does not contain recital that accused had been convicted of any offense in conformity -with Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 903, appeal win be dismissed.
    On Second Motion to Dismiss Appeál.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;l086(l3)— Appeal dismissed in absence of copy of sentence in transcript.
    Where transcript fails to contain copy of sentence, appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, in view of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 856.
    Appeal from District Court, Donley County; R. L. Templeton, Judge.
    L. D. Stanford was convicted of transportation of intoxicating liquor, and -he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Will Payne, of Dallas, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, and E. H. Beville and Cole & Simpson, all of Clarendon, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

The conviction is for the transportation of intoxicating liquor, with punishment of one year in the penitentiary.

The state has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because of an insufficient recognizance. As it appears in the record it contains no recital that appellant stands convicted of any offense. It is not in conformity with article 903 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defect is in all respects the same as that pointed out in Westbrook v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 466, 227 S. W. 1104, which was held fatal to the appeal.

The state’s motion must be sustained, and the appeal is ordered dismissed. .

On Second Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

MORROW, P. J.

The conviction is .for the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

We fail to find any sentence copied in the , transcript. In the absence of the sentence, this court is without jurisdiction. See article 856, C. C. P.; Vernon’s Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2, p. 851, and cases collated; Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. p. 338, § 667; also Bennett v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 652, 194 S. W. 145, 148.

The appeal is dismissed. 
      «gc^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     