Ex parte Pruitt
| Decision Date | 09 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 37317,37317 |
| Citation | 385 S.W.2d 384 |
| Parties | Ex parte B. H. PRUITT. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
B. H. Pruitt, in pro. per.
Doug Crouch, Dist. Atty., Truman Powers and Jack W. Beach, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from an order entered after hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding remanding the appellant to custody.
Appellant was convicted in Cause No. 56807 in Criminal District Court No. 2 of Tarrant County for robbery and was sentenced to a term of 5 years. The conviction was affirmed and mandate issued on March 15, 1957.
Upon his pleas of guilty to the offense of robbery in Causes Nos. 58167 and 58168, appellant was on March 20, 1957, sentenced in Criminal District Court of Tarrant County to terms of not less than 5 nor more than 10 years.
The sentence in Cause No. 58167 provides: 'It is further ordered that the punishment under this sentence shall begin when the judgment and sentence in Cause No. 56807, in Criminal District Court No. 2, Tarrant County, Texas has ceased to operate.'
The sentence in Cause No. 58168 provides:
The cumulative provisions appear to be sufficient. Ex parte Bobbitt, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 213, 262 S.W.2d 416
The three sentences authorize appellant's confinement by the Texas Department of Corrections until he has credit for a total of 15 years from and after March 15, 1957.
There is no merit in appellant's contention that the trial court was without authority to cumulate the sentences. Art. 774, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Ex parte Sanderson, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 180, 212 S.W.2d 639.
Appellant's attack upon the convictions in Causes Nos. 58167 and 58168, on the ground that he was not taken before a magistrate or given an examining trial, cannot be sustained. It is shown that he did not request an examining trial prior to indictment. It is not shown that a confession was used at his trial upon his plea of guilty.
The judgment remanding appellant to custody is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Lewis, 40331
...695; Ex parte Bell, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 490, 272 S.W.2d 530; Ex parte Collier, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 377, 243 S.W.2d 177. See also, Ex parte Pruitt, Tex.Cr.App., 385 S.W.2d 384; Ex parte Isom, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 434, 331 S.W.2d With this background we now examine the cumulation orders in the case at bar. In E......
-
Ex parte March
...161 Tex.Cr.R. 29, 274 S.W.2d 695; Ex parte Bell, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 490, 272 S.W.2d 530; Ex parte Collier, supra; see also Ex parte Pruitt, Tex.Cr.App., 385 S.W.2d 384; Ex parte Isom, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 434, 331 S.W.2d Further, this Court has held sufficient cumulation orders although reference is ma......
-
Williams v. State
...cause number and the correct name of the trial court of the prior conviction have been upheld by this Court. See e.g. Ex parte Pruitt, 385 S.W.2d 384 (Tex.Cr.App.1964); Ex parte Isom, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 434, 331 S.W.2d 753 (1959); Ex parte Bell, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 490, 272 S.W.2d 530 (1954). Finally,......
-
Stokes v. State
...Bell, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 490, 272 S.W.2d 530 (1954); Ex parte Collier, 156 Tex.C.R. 377, 243 S.W.2d 177 (1951). See also Ex parte Pruitt, 385 S.W.2d 384 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); Ex parte Isom, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 434, 331 S.W.2d 753 (1959). Since both convictions were in the same court, see also Hamm v. Sta......