
    JOHNSON v. STATE.
    (No. 9780.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 14, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <§=>1076(4) — Appeal bond, without approval, and dated and filed after adjournment, insufficient.
    An appeal bond, which was neither approved by the judge nor the sheriff, and which was dated and filed after court had adjourned, was insufficient to sustain an appeal.
    2. Bail' <@=>66 — Recognizance stating accused was convicted of violation of Dean Act, insufficient.
    A purported recognizance, entered into after adjournment of term of court in which conviction was had, staling that accused was “convicted of violation of Dean Act (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 192-2, art. 588% et seq.),” and which nowhere stated what he was charged of, was insufficient to give court jurisdiction.
    3. Bail <§=>64 — Recognizance, entered into after expiration of term, a nullity.
    A recognizance, entered into after the expiration of the term, is a nullity, since Code Or. Proc. 1911, art. 908, requires it to be entered into during term time of court.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Nueces County; A. W. Cunningham, Judge.
    Alfred Johnson was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. On motion to dismiss appeal.
    Appeal dismissed, and appellant granted 15 days within which to prepare proper bond.
    Sutherland & Sutherland and I. M. Singer, all of Corpus Christi, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Green-ville, and Nat Gentry, Jr., .Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was tried and convicted in the district court of Nueces county for the offense of transporting intoxicating liquor and his punishment assessed at one year in the penitentiary.

The record shows that the court convened on the 27th day of April, 1925, and ended on the 6th day of June, 1925. The state’s attorney for this court moves to dis-' miss this appeal on account of an insufficient appeal bond or an insufficient recognizance. The record discloses what is probably intended for an appeal bond, which is neither approved by the sheriff nor the district judge, dated June 12, 1925, and filed June 15, 1925. Without the approval of the judge and the sheriff, after the court had adjourned, same would he insufficient to sustain an appeal to this court. Brown v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 55, 224 S. W. 1105.

The record discloses what purports to be a recognizance, entered into on the 13th day of June, 1925, and after the adjournment of said term of said court, which states that appellant was “convicted of violation of the Dean Act,” and nowhere states what he was charged of. This is insufficient to give this court jurisdiction for two reasons: First, because the statement that he was convicted of violating the Dean Act (Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code Supp. 1922, art. 588% et seq.), is insufficient (Reed v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 505, 267 S. W. 271); and second, a recognizance entered into after the expiration of the term is a nullity. Art. 903, C. C. P., requires the recognizance to be entered into during term time of court.

For the reasons above stated, we are of the opinion that the state’s motion should be sustained and the appeal dismissed, and it is accordingly so ordered. Appellant is granted 15 days within which to prepare proper bond.

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.  