
    SANDIFER v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 7, 1911.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1911.)
    1. Cbiminal Law (§ 1086) — Appeal—Dismissal — Defective Record.
    Where, though accused’s recognizance was fixed at a certain sum, the record on his appeal does not contain a recognizance, or show affirmatively that accused is in jail, the appeal will be dismissed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1086.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1099) — Appeai^State-ments op Facts — Time op Filing.
    Statements of facts filed on a criminal appeal must not be dated back in filing, but must be actually filed within the time required by law.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 1099.]
    S. Criminal Law (§ 1106) — Appeal—Filing Transcript — Failure to File in Time.
    Unless the transcript is filed within the time required by law on a criminal appeal, the appellate court cannot consider the appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For ojher cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2890-2892; Dec. Dig. § 1106.]
    Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; Jas. W. Swayne, Judge.
    Albert' Sandifer was convicted of assault, and he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Parker & Parker, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Upon a trial under an indictment charging him with an assault to murder, appellant was convicted of simple assault, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $5.

A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and appellant’s recognizance fixed at the sum of $600. There is no recognizance in the record, nor is it affirmatively shown that appellant is in jail. The Assistant Attorney General has made a motion to dismiss the appeal on those grounds. The motion is sustained. Young v. State, 8 Tex. App. 81; Evans v. State, 8 Tex. App. 671, and authorities cited under articles 886 and 888, White’s Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure.

There is another matter appearing in this record to which we wish to call attention. The final judgment in this case was entered May 20, 1909, while the transcript on appeal was not filed in this court until April 27, 1911. It appears by the certificate of the clerk that the transcript was made out August 31, 1910, and, while the statement of facts bears a file date of June 1, 1909, there is an annotation which would indicate that it was not really filed until August 2, 1910, more than a year after the case was tried. We want to call to the attention of the officers of the courts and attorneys that statements of facts must not be filed back, and that records must be promptly filed- in this court. The law must be complied with in these respects, or the cases on appeal cannot be considered by us.

The appeal is dismissed.  