Ex parte Hopkins
| Decision Date | 01 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 64172,64172 |
| Citation | 610 S.W.2d 479 |
| Parties | Ex parte Vincent Calvin HOPKINS aka Vincent Hopkins Calvin. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles Rice Young, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty. and James C. Brough, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON STATE'S MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL
This particular proceeding was initiated by application for writ of habeas corpus filed after indictment but before trial. It is one of several proceedings involving petitioner that began after his January 26, 1979 arrest upon a charge of murder. A juvenile at the time the offense is alleged to have been committed, petitioner was immediately caught up in Family Code proceedings, especially those mandated by V.T.C.A. Family Code, Chapter 54. The maze that was soon created by the parties and affected courts is described in the opinion in Cause No. 17630 in the Texas Court of Civil Appeals for the First Supreme Judicial District filed July 17, 1980, styled Vincent Calvin Hopkins aka Vincent Hopkins Calvin vs. The State of Texas, to which we shall later advert.
The nub of the problem is that while transfer orders of the juvenile court were being contested on appeal the criminal district court proceeded as if the last one, October 18, 1979, were entirely valid. Thus, an indictment was returned and petitioner was remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris County. This development prompted the instant application for habeas corpus filed January 31, 1980 and denial of relief February 5, 1980, followed by appeal to this Court.
Trial on the indictment started the following day and on February 13, 1980 petitioner was found guilty by a jury which assessed punishment at forty years confinement. Petitioner then obtained an order from the trial court consolidating the habeas matter with the conviction for appellate purposes, and with the State presented in this Court a joint motion to dismiss his appeal from denial of relief in the habeas proceeding. In a per curiam opinion handed down May 21, 1980, a panel of the Court ordered that appeal dismissed not on the reasons advanced in joint motion, but on the ground that pendency of the appeal from judgment of conviction rendered the habeas appeal moot.
Then came the opinion and judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals. For reasons stated therein, and we need not reiterate them, the opinion concludes:
"The transfer order of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Perry
...aff'd, 233 S.W.3d 870 (Tex.Crim.App.2007).12 See Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (citing Ex parte Hopkins, 610 S.W.2d 479, 480 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Ex parte Powell, 558 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Ex parte Groves, 571 S.W.2d 888, 890 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Ex p......
-
Ex parte Serna
...is premature. A court should not grant habeas corpus relief when there is an adequate remedy by appeal. See Ex parte Hopkins, 610 S.W.2d 479, 480 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Ex parte Wilhelm, 901 S.W.2d 956, 957 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Benavides, 801 S.W.2d 535, ......
-
Ex parte Chapa
...[pretrial] writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as substitute for or to usurp the function of an appeal."); Ex parte Hopkins, 610 S.W.2d 479, 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) ("Habeas corpus will not lie as a substitute for an appeal."); Ex parte Overstreet, 89 S.W.2d 1002, 1003 (1935) ("We have ......
-
Ex parte Dharmagunaratne, s. 2-95-231-C
...claims are premature. A court should not grant habeas corpus relief when there is an adequate remedy by appeal. See Ex parte Hopkins, 610 S.W.2d 479, 480 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Ex parte Wilhelm, 901 S.W.2d 956, 957 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd); Ex parte Benavides, 801 S.W.......