
    HELLMAN v. STATE.
    (No. 5853.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 9, 1920.)
    1. Criminal law <@=>1086(1) — Record not re-viewabie when matters preliminary to judgment of conviction are not shown in record.
    Where record showed, “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty and assess his punishment. * * * G., Foreman” — followed by an order adjudging him guilty as found by the jury, etc., there was no such judgment shown to have been entered as is required by Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 853, where it failed to show that appellant entered any plea, or that a jury was impaneled, or any of such preliminary matters required by such statute.
    2. Criminal law <@=>I086(13)— Appellate court acquires no jurisdiction in absence of showing of entry of proper judgment.
    The appellate court acquires no jurisdiction of an appeal where the record does not show entry of a judgment in compliance with Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 853.
    Appeal from Matagorda County Court; John F. Perry, Judge.
    J. Heilman was convicted of a violation of the pistol law, and appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Matt Cramer, of Bay City, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction for violation of the pistol law.

A motion to dismiss the appeal is made on the ground that the record does not show a judgment. The only attempt at a judgment in the record is found in the following language:

“We, the jury, find the defendant J. Heilman guilty, and assess his punishment at $100.00 fine and costs. G. S. Gideon, Foreman.”
Then' follows the order of the court adjudging him guilty of carrying a pistol as found by the jury, etc. It will be noticed that it fails to show that appellant entered any plea, or that a jury was impaneled, or any of those preliminary matters required by the statute which precedes the rendition of a verdict. C. O. P. art. 853. This judgment as presented is not in accord with the statute. Without a judgment the jurisdiction of this court does not attach. We are therefore of opinion that the motion of the Assistant Attorney General is well taken and is sustained.

The appeal is dismissed.  