
    HORN v. STATE.
    (No. 10484.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 22, 1926.
    Appeal Reinstated March 2, 1927.)
    Criminal law i&wkey;l086(l3)—Appeal will be dismissed where record fails to disclose that
    trial court sentenced defendant (Vernon’s
    Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 769).
    Appeal will be dismissed where record fails to disclose that trial court sentenced defendant, since Court of Criminal Appeals is without jurisdiction in such ease, in view of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 769.
    Appeal from District Court, Parker County; F. O. McKinsey, Judge.
    Gilbert Horn was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Houtehens & Clark, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeek, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted of burglary in the district court of Parker county, and his punishment assessed at 2 years in the penitentiary.

The record fails to disclose that the trial court sentenced the appellant, in the absence of which this court is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. Vernon’s 1925 C. C. P., art. 769, citing Dodd v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 543,179 S. W. 564, and many other authorities collated thereunder.

For the reason above stated, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

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 Motion to Reinstate Appeal.

LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant has supplied the omission of the sentence which caused the dismissal of this appeal, and the appeal is now reinstated and the case considered on its merits.

This is a companion ease to that of Arthur Horn v. State (No. 10483) 292 S. W. 227, opinion handed down February 23, 1927. The identical questions raised id that case appear in this record. The reasons stated at some length in that opinion are decisive of the questions stated here. The same argument was made by the assistant county attorney to the jury, and by the jury in their retirement, and the same comment appears to have been made by the court upon the introduction of the evidence referred to and set out in said former opinion. It is not necessary to restate the matters • here. Reference is had to the case of Arthur Horn v. State, supra. For the reasons therein stated, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. 
      <g^For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     