Ex Parte Banks
| Decision Date | 01 November 1899 |
| Citation | 53 S.W. 688 |
| Parties | Ex parte BANKS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
M. D. Carlock, for applicant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus. The applicant alleges that he is illegally restrained of his liberty by the superintendent of the county convict farm. The facts agreed upon show that he was fined in two misdemeanor cases. The trial and conviction of applicant in the justice court was in July, 1898, and the punishment assessed was a fine of $50 and costs, amounting to $57.43, which made the total of fine and costs $107.43. In August following, applicant was tried in the county court, and convicted of a misdemeanor. The fine assessed against him was $50, and the costs were $50.90, — the total being $100.90; and in addition, imprisonment in the county jail for 24 hours was assessed against him. These were separate cases, and the judgment in the last case did not refer to the former. Applicant, in order to pay the fine and costs in said two cases, aggregating $208.83, was placed on the county convict or poor farm of Wood county. He alleges, and it is agreed, that he has labored on said farm 324 days; that he was sick, and unable to work, 25 days; and that he did not do any labor on said farm for 47 days, — 45 of same being on Sunday; that 396 days have elapsed since applicant has been on said convict farm. Applicant contends that said judgments were not cumulative, and that he had been imprisoned on the first case 24 hours, and had been hired on the county farm a sufficient length of time to pay off the fine and costs in the first case, and that he was entitled to his discharge, regardless of the fine and costs in the subsequent case.
The statute regulating cumulative sentences refers only to cases in which imprisonment in the penitentiary or the county jail is a part of the punishment (Code Cr. Proc. art. 840); and it has been held this article refers as well to misdemeanors as to felonies (Ex parte Cox, 29 Tex. App. 84, 14 S. W. 396; Ex parte Bates [Tex. Cr. App.] 40 S. W. 269). A reference to said article will show that it has no reference to pecuniary fines, but relates to cases in which the punishment is by imprisonment. Until the passage of said statute, there was no statute with reference to cumulative punishments. In such cases it was held, where the punishment was imprisonment, that the terms of punishment, when the same defendant was convicted in two or more cases, ran...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crook
...fines. Since 1899, this Court has held that pecuniary fines imposed in separate cases should be cumulated. See Ex Parte Banks, 41 Tex.Crim. 201, 53 S.W. 688 (1899). Accord Ex Parte Williams, 133 Tex.Crim. 116, 109 S.W.2d 171 (1937); Ex Parte Hall, 158 Tex.Crim. 646, 258 S.W.2d 806 (1953); B......
-
Turner v. State
...135, 38 S.W. 1143 (Court of Appeals 1897); Ex parte Cox, 29 Tex.App. 84, 14 S.W. 396 (Court of Appeals 1890); Ex parte Banks, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 201, 53 S.W. 688 (1899). Cf. Ex parte Davis, 71 Tex.Cr.App. 538, 160 S.W. 459 Said Article 800 as amended in 1883 became Article 840 of the 1895 Code of......
-
Rocky Mountain v. State, 01-89-00296-CR
...Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that judgments in misdemeanor cases imposing pecuniary fines are cumulative. Ex parte Banks, 41 Tex.Crim. 201, 53 S.W. 688, 689 (1899). Texas courts have consistently followed that holding. See Ex parte Minjares, 582 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel......
-
Southern Political Consulting, Inc. v. State, 01-89-00304-CR
...Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that judgments in misdemeanor cases imposing pecuniary fines are cumulative. Ex parte Banks, 41 Tex.Crim. 201, 53 S.W. 688, 689 (1899). Texas courts have consistently followed that holding. See Ex parte Minjares, 582 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel......