Ex Parte Sharp

• Decision Date: 25 June 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 10392.)
• Citation: 285 S.W. 1090
• Parties: Ex parte SHARP.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

285 S.W. 1090

Ex parte SHARP.

(No. 10392.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1926.

Appeal from Criminal District Court, Nueces County; A. W. Cunningham, Judge.

Application by O. H. Sharp for writ of habeas corpus.From an order declining to discharge relator, or to modify the order fixing bail, relator appeals.Appeal dismissed.

E. T. Simmang, Jr., of Tientsin, China, for appellant.

Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., of Austin, and Robt.M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.

MORROW, P. J.

Relator was charged by complaint in the magistrate's court with the offense of theft from a person.Upon the hearing, the magistrate ordered him to await the action of the grand jury, and fixed bail in the sum of $1,000.The district judge, upon the application of relator, issued a writ of habeas corpus, and upon the hearing thereof declined to discharge the relator or modify the order fixing bail.

The proceedings were had in chambers.The transcript of the proceedings is not certified by the judge, as required by statute.SeeEx parte Malone, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 297, 31 S. W. 665, 33 S. W. 360, and cases following, collated in Rose's Notes on Tex. Rep. vol. 5, p. 1062; also Vernon's Ann. CodeCr.Proc. 1916, art. 950.Nor does it contain notice of appeal.SeeEx parte Barrier, 17 Tex. App. 585.The statement of facts is not certified by the trial judge, as required by article 950, Vernon's Tex. Crim. Stat. vol. 2.See, also, Ex parte Malone, supra;Ex parte Calvin, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 48 S. W. 518;Ex parte Overstreet, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 468, 46 S. W. 929.

For the reasons stated, the record is not in a condition for us to consider the merits thereof.However, even if the law permitted us to do so, the relator being charged by complaint with a felony, and held by the examining court and the district judge on a writ of habeas corpus in default of bail, allowed in the sum of $1,000, and there being no evidence that it was...