Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

J. B. JOHNSON v. THE STATE.

Extortion — In Receiving Higher Fees than Allowed by Law — Recognizance on Appeal.

"Extortion" is not an offense eo nomine, and a recognizance on appeal from a conviction of an officer for receiving higher fees than allowed by law is fatally defective where it recites that defendant stands charged with "extortion." In such case, the constituent elements of the offense must be set out in the recognizance.

DAVIDSON, JUDGE.

Appellant was convicted, under article 256 of the Penal Code, for willfully receiving higher fees as county attorney than authorized by law. The recognizance recites that the defendant stands charged with the offense of "extortion." The Assistant Attorney-General moves to dismiss the appeal, because the recognizance recites no offense against the law. Extortion is not an offense eo nomine. Therefore, in stating the offense in the recognizance, the constituent elements of the offense must be set out. See Schoonmaker v. State, 37 Tex.Crim. Rep.. This was not done, and the motion is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.

Dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

JOHNSON v. THE STATE
(Jun 2, 1897)