Ex parte Crossnoe
| Citation | 232 S.W.2d 855,155 Tex.Crim. 129 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 25058,25058 |
| Parties | Ex parte CROSSNOE. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Gordon M. Burns, Huntsville, for relalator.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
DAVIDSON, Commissioner.
Relator was, on January 20, 1945, upon his plea of guilty, convicted in the District Court of Howard County, Texas, in five felony cases, with punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary in each case.
In passing sentence, the trial court made the following order in each case, viz.: 'This sentence shall not run concurrent with any other sentence heretofore received.'
The penitentiary authorities construe this order as making the several sentences cumulative. Relator contends that the order is ineffective for that purpose and that the sentences are concurrent.
It is undisputed that if the sentences are cumulative, relator is not entitled to be discharged, and if concurrent, he has served the sentence imposed and is entitled to be discharged from custody.
By writ of habeas corpus to this court, relator seeks his outright discharge from custody.
Prior to the enactment of Art. 774, C.C.P., cumulation of punishment was unrecognized and unauthorized. Baker v. State, 11 Tex.App. 262. It was for the purpose of authorizing trial courts, in the exercise of their discretion, to cumulate punishments that Art. 774, C.C.P. was enacted.
Art. 774, C.C.P., in keeping with the express provisions thereof, has been given the construction that unless the trial court, by order, expressly makes cumulative the several punishments, they run concurrently. Ex parte Davis, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 538, 160 S.W. 459; Ex parte Whiteside, 141 Tex.Cr.R. 642, 150 S.W.2d 1022.
It is in the light of this statute and the construction placed thereon that the order here before us must be appraised.
In the first instance, the power extended to trial courts by Art. 774, C.C.P. was to make cumulative sentences which otherwise would run concurrently. Unless and until the trial courts ordered the sentences to run cumulatively, the mandate of the statute that they run concurrently was not disturbed.
Here, the trial court made no effort, by an express order to that effect, to cumulate the punishments imposed. Without such cumulative order, the trial court was powerless to contradict the statute, Art. 774, C.C.P., by saying that the sentences should not run concurrently.
Secondly, the order of the trial court cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Hernandez, 70263
...Ex parte Downey, 471 S.W.2d 576 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Ex parte Reynolds, 462 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Ex parte Crossnoe, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 129, 232 S.W.2d 855 (1950); Ex parte Davis, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 538, 160 S.W. 459 (Tex.Cr.App.1913). See also Ex parte Ashe, 641 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Ex......
-
Williams v. State, 05-19-00428-CR
...run concurrently "unless the trial court, by order, expressly makes [those punishments] cumulative") (quoting Ex Parte Crossnoe, 232 S.W.2d 855, 855-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 1950)). 6. The motion for new trial is in the clerk's record only in Cause No. F18-35120, but the motion contained both ca......
- Ex parte Sadler, 27913
-
Ex parte Epperson, 25059
...case. The sentence in each case provided that it was 'not to run concurrent with any other sentence heretofore received.' In Ex parte Crossnoe, 232 S.W.2d 855, we held that such a provision was not effective as cumulating the sentences and that, notwithstanding such provision, the sentences......