Ex Parte Thomas
| Decision Date | 08 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6836.) |
| Citation | 237 S.W. 302 |
| Parties | Ex parte THOMAS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Erath County; J. B. Keith, Judge.
Application of M. M. Thomas for a writ of habeas corpus against the sheriff of Erath county. From an order remanding Thomas to the custody of the sheriff, Thomas appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
J. A. Johnson and Mack Taylor, both of Stephenville, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Erath county rendered upon a hearing of an application for habeas corpus on the part of appellant herein, the object of said writ being in some little condition of confusion, but which judgment remanded appellant to the custody of the sheriff of said county in default of a $7,500 bail bond for his appearance at the next regular term of the district court of said county. We have said that the relief sought by appellant is not exactly clear to us, because in his recital of the facts in his application for the writ presented to the lower court appellant states that an excessive amount of bail was demanded of him, and also that the trial court refused to approve a bail bond in the sum of $5,000 tendered by him to the sheriff of said county.
It appears from the record that appellant was charged by indictment with theft of an automobile, and that his case had been continued once upon his own application, and that a trial later had resulted in a hung jury, and that at still another trial he was convicted and granted a new trial, and that at still a later setting of his case he failed to appear and his bond was forfeited, and that some two months or more afterward he was arrested and placed in jail, from which confinement he released himself by sawing out of the jail, and it was also shown that he had stated while in jail that the district judge, coupling this statement with an obscene epithet, should never try him. In our opinion these facts justified the requirement of appellant of a larger bond than is ordinarily required of one charged with a felony of the grade of theft. The object of a bail bond is to secure the presence of the accused in order that he may be tried upon the charge against him, but when it appears to the proper authorities that the prisoner is not disposed to regard the obligation of ordinary bonds, or to be restrained by ordinary confinement, or has made threats that he will not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State
...actions and threats of the accused because they bear upon his good faith in appearing. U.S. v. Mulcahy, supra; Ex parte Thomas, 91 Tex.Cr.App. 49, 237 S.W. 302 (1922); Kendrick v. State, 180 Ark. 1160, 24 S.W.2d Thus, we find no merit in this point. The next point for reversal is very diffi......
-
Ex parte McDonald, 04-93-00056-CR
...608 S.W.2d 681, 683 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Ex parte O'Clare, 136 Tex.Crim. 123, 124 S.W.2d 141 (1939); Ex parte Thomas, 91 Tex.Crim. 49, 237 S.W. 302, 303 (1922). The amount of bail must be high enough to give reasonable assurance that the accused will appear as required, but the......
- Walker v. State
- Green v. State, 24736