Ex Parte Morris

• Decision Date: 09 January 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 8437.)
• Citation: 257 S.W. 894
• Parties: Ex parte MORRIS.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

257 S.W. 894

Ex parte MORRIS.

(No. 8437.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

January 9, 1924.

Original application for writ of certiorari by Ewell Morris. Application refused.

E. L. Dunlap, of Victoria, for applicant.

Tom Garrard, State's Atty., of Midland, and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State's Atty., of Devine, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

An application for a writ of certiorari on behalf of Ewell Morris is here presented by his attorney. It appears that anterior to this time Morris has been convicted of a capital offense, which judgment was affirmed on appeal to this court (255 S. W. 744), and that the date for the execution has been fixed for January 16, 1924. A plea of insanity was interposed in behalf of Morris upon his trial originally and was an issue therein upon the evidence then before the jury and court. It is made to appear that after the affirmance of said cause by this court an affidavit was filed on behalf of Morris asserting that he had become insane subsequent to his conviction in said cause. Upon the filing of said affidavit of insanity the case was heard and a judgment entered declaring Morris to be sane.

As we understand the application for certiorari it seeks to have this court direct the district clerk of Victoria county, Tex., to make out and forward to this court without delay a transcript of the record in said insanity inquiry trial had of said Morris upon the affidavit alleging that he had become insane since his conviction. Apparently this is sought upon some proposition that said trial was not conducted in such manner as to lead to a satisfactory conclusion, and was without that due process of law contemplated by the Constitution of this state and the United States. In the application averments seem to be made that an inspection of the record would show that the insanity inquiry was not conducted in a proper manner.

We are not at liberty to grant the application. In Darnell v. State, 24 Tex. App. 6, 5 S. W. 522, this court held that one, charged with being insane, who upon trial is found to be sane, has no right of appeal. Finding one to be sane in such case is tantamount to a verdict of not guilty. The right of appeal is in no event given to one charged except upon conviction. It is held that conviction is an indispensable requisite to the right of appeal and that such fact must be made to appear before this court could entertain jurisdiction. If this court undertook to grant the application now before it, this...