Opinion · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Workman v. State
170 Tex. Crim. 621
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Date
- 1961-03-01
- Topic
- general
holding that court’s judgment discharging criminal defendant from liability was not appealable judgment | holding that court’s judgment discharging criminal defendant from liability was not appealable judgment | stating that generally appellate court has jurisdiction of appeal by criminal defendant only after conviction | dismissing defendant’s appeal of judgment discharging defendant from charge because it was not judgment of conviction | dismissing appeal where the judgment in the record was not a judgment of conviction | stating order denying counsel does not fall within the categories of appealable interlocutory orders | dismissing appeal of judgment discharging appellant because it was not judgment of conviction | dismissing appeal of judgment discharging appellant because it was not judgment of conviction | Judgment discharging defendant on charge of aggravated assault after conviction for simple assault was not a judgment of conviction. | An appellate court generally only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant from a final judgment of conviction. | Judgment discharging defendant on charge of aggravated assault after conviction for simple assault was not a judgment of conviction. | generally, appeals may be taken only from final conviction
Citator
- Cited by
- 189 opinions
Appellant was tried in the County Court of Cochran County, before a special judge and a jury, upon complaint and information alleging that he committed an aggravated assault upon Raymond Kuykendall, a special deputy sheriff who was in the discharge of his official duties.
Appellant sought to have the jury instructed to acquit if they found that Kuykendall was not a special deputy sheriff discharging his official duties, but the court submitted both aggravated assault and simple assault.
*622 The jury returned the following verdict: “Guility of simple assault, and we the jurors assess the defendant fine maximum Penalty.”
The judgment rendered and entered recites that the following verdict was returned and entered: “We, the jury, find the defendant Ed Workman guilty, and assess a fine of $25.00 and Court cost of $58.30.”
Following this verdict, the judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted recites:
“It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that the defendant, Ed Workman, be immediately discharged from all further liability upon the charge for which he has herein been tried and that he go hence without day.”
The judgment rendered in effect upheld appellant’s contention that he was entitled to acquittal if not found guilty of aggravated assault.
In any event, the judgment appearing in the transcript is not a judgment of conviction from which an appeal may be taken to this court.
The appeal is dismissed.