Ex parte Lefors

Decision Date07 June 1961
Docket NumberNo. 33600,33600
Citation347 S.W.2d 254,171 Tex.Crim. 229
PartiesEx parte Charles M. LEFORS.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Relator represented himself.

W. G. Walley, Jr., Acting Crim. Dist. Atty., W. T. Wood, Jr., Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, and Leon Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding by an inmate of the penitentiary attacking as void the sentence pronounced against him by Judge Owen M. Lord in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County in January, 1954. The conviction as a second offender for felony theft was affirmed by this Court in LeFors v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 544, 278 S.W.2d 837.

The grounds advanced are that Judge Lord was not qualified to act as judge of said court for two reasons, namely:

1. That he was convicted of a felony in 1930 in the Federal Court for the Western District of Louisiana, and

2. That he was not a member of the State Bar of Texas at the time of the trial because he had failed to pay his bar dues.

It has been the consistent holding of this Court, as well as the courts of other jurisdictions, that a collateral attack upon the qualifications of a district judge, such as by habeas corpus, cannot be sustained. While he is in possession of the office under color of title, discharging its ordinary functions, a judge's official acts are conclusive as to all persons interested and cannot be attacked in a collateral proceeding, even though the person acting as judge lacks the necessary qualifications and is incapable of legally holding the office. Ex parte Call, 2 Tex.App. 497; Ex parte Grundy, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 367, 8 S.W.2d 677; Snow v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 114 S.W.2d 898; Anderson v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.App. 423, 195 S.W.2d 368; and Salyer v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 532, 316 S.W.2d 420.

While the rule stated precludes the granting of the relief prayed for, we deem it appropriate to observe that the only offense charged against Owen M. Lord was the violation of Title 38, Section 551, U.S.C.A., 1 prescribing maximum fees for attorneys handling War Risk Insurance claims. By the express terms of said Section 551, the offense is a misdemeanor, not a felony. Margolin v. United States, 269 U.S. 93, 46 S.Ct. 64, 70 L.Ed. 176.

We further observe that at the time Owen M. Lord qualified for the office of district judge, following his election in 1946, the Constitution required that he 'shall have been a practicing lawyer [of this State,] or a Judge of a Court in this State * * * for four (4) years next preceding his election.' There is no contention that Judge Lord did not possess these qualifications.

Prior to his re-election in 1950, Article V, Section 7, of the Constitution of Texas, Vernon's Ann.St., was amended so as to provide that a district judge 'shall be licensed to practice law in this State and shall have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 12, 1987
    ...holding the office." Tart v. State, 642 S.W.2d 244, 246 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no pet.) (citing Ex parte Lefors, 171 Tex.Crim. 229, 347 S.W.2d 254 (1961). "If the appellant desires to challenge such authority, he must bring a direct action through a quo warranto proceeding." ......
  • Freeman v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 18, 1977
    ...257; Burkhardt v. State, 83 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 202 S.W. 513; Ex parte Grundy, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 367, 8 S.W.2d 677. See also Ex parte Le Fors, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 229, 347 S.W.2d 254; Broach v. Garth, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W. 594 (n.w.h.) Ground of error 29 is In ground 30, appellant complains of the added w......
  • Rosell v. Central West Motor Stages, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 22, 2002
    ...the person acting as judge lacks the necessary qualifications and is incapable of legally holding the office. Ex parte Lefors, 171 Tex.Crim. 229, 347 S.W.2d 254, 254-55 (1961); Texaco, Inc., 729 S.W.2d at 854. An appeal is not the proper procedure to challenge the authority of a judge to ho......
  • Herrod v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 25, 1983
    ...proceeding and not on appeal. Keen v. State, supra; Snow v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 263, 114 S.W.2d 898 (1937); Ex parte Lefors, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 229, 347 S.W.2d 254 (1961). See also, Archer v. State, 607 S.W.2d 539 For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. W.C. DAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ., join in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT