Ex parte Jones, 28612
| Decision Date | 10 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 28612,28612 |
| Citation | 294 S.W.2d 111,163 Tex.Crim. 475 |
| Parties | Ex parte Luther E. JONES et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Percy Foreman, Houston, Faires P. Wade, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Sidney P. Chandler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sam H. Burris, Dist. Atty., Alice, Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
While this Court was in constitutional vacation, relators presented their application for writ of habeas corpus to the Presiding Judge thereof, setting up therein that they were illegally restrained of their liberty by the Sheriff of Duval County by virtue of an order of commitment made by the District Judge of said county. The writ was granted and made returnable to this Court on the first day of the present term. A motion has been made by our State's Attorney to dismiss relators' application, and accompanying said motion is an affidavit of the sheriff of Duval County in which he recites that at the time the writ was granted relators were not in his custody by virtue of any written order of the District Court of Duval County. An examination of the record reveals that the District Judge made an oral order of commitment, that the relators surrendered themselves to the deputy sheriff and requested him to place them in jail, that the application for the writ was presented to the Presiding Judge of this Court, bail was granted, and relators were released. Following this, the District Judge signed the judgment finding relators guilty of contempt and committing them, and that thereafter each of them was arrested by the sheriff and each made bond.
It is the settled law of this State that a District Judge has no authority to commit a person for constructive contempt on a mere verbal order. Ex parte Eager, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 97, 79 S.W.2d 136; Harbison v. McMurray, Tex.Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 680, and cases there cited.
Since the application for the writ of habeas corpus was prematurely made and granted, the application will be dismissed. Ex parte Jonischkies, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 129, 224 S.W. 1092.
The contempt decree is predicated upon the theory that relators' conduct, including the election of a special judge, was in violation of the order of the regular judge providing for the time for holding sessions of the court during the term.
Relators, on the other hand, contend that the election of the special judge was authorized by statute, that the official acts of the special judge were lawful, and that bad...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Reece
...acts—described by the trial court as “contemptible”—involved the violation of a court order). FN19. See, e.g., Ex parte Jones, 163 Tex.Crim. 475, 294 S.W.2d 111, 112 (1956) (dismissing habeas petition arising from contempt proceeding due to contemnor's violation of a court order because “[t......
-
Ex parte Morris
...case, did take jurisdiction, and discharged the relator.' Another proceeding with a somewhat similar history is Ex parte Jones, Tex.Cr.App., 163 Tex.Cr.R. 475, 294 S.W.2d 111; 164 Tex.Cr.R. 208, 298 S.W.2d 121. Several attorneys were held in contempt for electing a special judge to try an e......
-
Ex parte Puente, s. 30006
...Since a challenge as to the constitutionality of said article has been made, we deem it appropriate to say, as we did in Ex parte Jones, Tex.Cr.App., 294 S.W.2d 111, that in the event of further applications for writ of habeas corpus by relators attacking the validity of the commitment, thi......
-
Ex parte Jones, 28730
...Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State. MORRISON, Presiding Judge. Our prior opinion in this matter is reported as Ex parte Jones, Tex.Cr.App., 294 S.W.2d 111. Following the issuance of the mandate in said cause, relators were arrested and imprisoned by the sheriff of Duval County. T......