
    (85 Tex. Cr. R. 402)
    LOPEZ v. STATE.
    (No. 5196.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 4, 1919.)
    Bail <®=>64 — Appeal — Sufficiency of Recognizance.
    An appeal in a felony case will be dismissed where the recognizance neither binds appellant to abide by the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, nor shows the court in which the accused .was tried, nor follows the form prescribed by Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 90S.
    Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; W. D. Howe, Judge.
    Amoldo Lopez was convicted of a felony, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

This is an appeal from a felony conviction in the district court of the Thirty-Fourth district of El Paso county.

The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because of a defective recognizance. The recognizance does not bind the appellant to abide by the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Lindsey v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. R. 273, 128 S. W. 386. Nor does the same show the court in which the accused was tried. Hughes v. State, 62 Tex. Cr., R. 288, 136 S. W. 1068. Nor does said recognizance follow the form prescribed by our statutes. See article 90S, C, C. „P.; Black v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 151, 151 S. W. 1053.

The motion of the Assistant Attorney General will be sustained, and the appeal dismissed.  