Ex parte Covin
| Citation | 277 S.W.2d 109,161 Tex.Crim. 320 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 27555,27555 |
| Parties | Ex parte Donald E. COVIN. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
No attorney on appeal for appellant.
David Moore, Crim. Dist. Atty., Paul J. McClung, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Longview, Leon Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding in which the relator seeks his release from the penitentiary where he is being confined under a sentence of life imprisonment assessed against him in the 124th Judicial District Court of Gregg County on April 8, 1943.
The petition for the writ was presented to the Honorable Fred Erisman, Judge of the 124th Judicial District Court of Gregg County. Upon a hearing before the Honorable Sam B. Hall, presiding in such court, the writ of habeas corpus was ordered issued and made returnable to this court as provided in Article 119, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
The facts, as certified to this court, show that the relator was indicted for the offense that the relator was indicted for the offense organized and impaneled in Gregg County, Texas, on March 4, 1935, for the March-April Term of the 124th Judicial District Court; that on April 24, 1935, relator was tried under such indictment in Cause No. 1766-B on the docket of said court and was by the jury verdict found guilty and assessed the death penalty. Upon appeal to this court the judgment of conviction was affirmed and mandate issued on May 1, 1936, See Covin v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 285, 93 S.W.2d 428. On June 1, 1936, upon a sanity hearing relator was adjudged insane and placed in the State Hospital at Rusk, Texas. Thereafter, on March 23, 1943, the relator's death sentence was commuted by the Governor of Texas to life imprisonment. On April 8th, relator, upon a sanity hearing, was found sane by a jury and on such date was sentenced under the judgment of conviction in Cause No. 1766-B to serve not less than two years nor more than life in the state penitentiary, where he is not being confined under said sentence.
Relator alleges that the indictment under which he was convicted is void because the same was presented by an illegal grand jury in that three members thereof had not paid their poll taxes within the time required by law, and that such three named grand jurors did not possess the qualifications for servint on such grand jury as provided in Article 339, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., which reads in part as follows:
'No person shall be selected or serve as a grand juror who does not possess the following qualifications:
Relator further alleges that at the time the three grand jurors were placed upon the grand jury there were enough qualified citizens in Gregg County who were qualified voters to serve on such grand jury.
It is relator's contention that the court was without authority or jurisdiction to try the case against him because the indictment was void by reason of having been returned by an illegal grand jury; that for such reason he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dumont v. Estelle
...offense occurred after the grand jury was impaneled. See Ex parte Fertitta, 1959, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 483, 320 S.W.2d 839; Ex parte Covin, 1955, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 320, 277 S.W.2d 109; Turner v. State, 1945, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 491, 187 S.W.2d 991; Conklin v. State, 1942, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 210, 162 S.W.2d 416. ......
-
U.S. v. Chambers
...U.S. 924, 99 S.Ct. 2850, 61 L.Ed.2d 291 (1979); Valadez v. State, 408 S.W.2d 109, 111 (Tex.Crim.App.1966) (same); Ex parte Covin, 161 Tex.Crim. 320, 277 S.W.2d 109 (App.1955) (waiver of claim that three members of grand jury had not paid poll taxes and were therefore not legally qualified);......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...on impanelment is not possible, the array can be attacked in a motion to quash the indictment before trial commences. Ex parte Covin, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 320, 277 S.W.2d 109. If the defendant has an opportunity to challenge the array when it is impaneled and does not do so, he may not challenge i......
-
Pittman v. State, 12-10-00328-CR
...as an example a case where the offense was committed after the grand jury was impaneled. Id. (citing Ex parte Covin, 161 Tex. Crim. 320, 322, 277 S.W.2d 109, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 1955)). Appellant argues that it was not possible for him to challenge the grand jury prior to its being impanel......