Ex parte Stickney
| Decision Date | 11 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 33764,33764 |
| Parties | Ex parte Howard B. STICKNEY. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Bob Looney, Charles R. Burton, Austin, for petitioner.
Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., and Neil McKay, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the respondent.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding wherein Hon. Cullen F. Briggs, Judge of the 117th District Court of Nueces County, granted the writ; stayed the execution of the death sentence pronounced against the relator in a district court of Harris County, and ordered the relator brought from the death cell at Huntsville to Nueces County for a hearing. After hearing, writ was issued returnable before this Court.
Judge Briggs was in error in granting the petition for habeas corpus and in declining to set aside his order when it was shown that such petition had been presented to this Court and leave to file denied. We refused to entertain the petition because the questions raised had been adjudicated against the relator in Stickney v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 336 S.W.2d 133, certiorari denied, and in subsequent habeas corpus proceedings including that which resulted in an order made by Federal District Judge Allen B. Hannay which was affirmed in Stickney v. Ellis, 5 Cir., 286 F.2d 755, certiorari denied.
It was also shown to Judge Briggs that the petition which he granted had, the same day, been presented to State and Federal Judges in Harris County, including Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. R. Brown who made an order refusing to file it.
Judge Briggs was also in error in appointing psychiatrists or doctors to inquire into the sanity of the relator. Only the judge of the convicting court, or district judge of the county where the person assessed the death penalty is confined, has authority to inquire into his sanity or insanity. Art. 932b(4), Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Judge Briggs acquired no jurisdiction to make such inquiry when the relator was brought to Nueces County under his order for a hearing. To so hold would remove the limitations of Sec. 4 of Art. 932b, V.A.C.C.P. and permit any district judge to order a sanity trial in any county for any person convicted and assessed the death penalty.
An amended petition for habeas corpus was filed on the day of the hearing which contained allegations contending that the District Attorney of Harris County had suppressed evidence, consisting of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State of Texas, Civ. A. No. 64-H-626.
...so, no other court of this state has authority to overrule or circumvent its decisions, or disobey its mandates." Ex Parte Stickney, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 303, 349 S.W.2d 732 (1961), contains language of similar import. 22 Page 52, lines 6-13 of the record of this Court's proceedings on December 4-......
-
Ex parte Young
...Ex Parte Bazemore, 430 S.W.2d 205 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Ex Parte Carpenter, 425 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Ex Parte Stickney, 349 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1961); Ex Parte Johnson, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 619, 224 S.W.2d 240 (1949); Ex Parte Mitchell,462 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Ex Parte Young, Supr......
-
State ex rel. Wilson v. Briggs
...Court. On October 11, 1961 we set aside the order staying the execution and denied the relief prayed for. Ex parts Stickney, Tex.Cr.App., 349 S.W.2d 732. Mandate having issued and the Governor's reprieve having fixed October 27, 1961 as the execution date, the execution was stayed by order ......