Ex Parte Thompson
| Decision Date | 15 December 1909 |
| Citation | 123 S.W. 612 |
| Parties | Ex parte THOMPSON. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Dallas Scarborough, for relator. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an original application for writ of habeas corpus, filed in this court in vacation, and made returnable before the full bench on November 24th of this year.
Relator alleged, in substance, that he was illegally confined and restrained in the state penitentiary under a judgment and sentence rendered in the district court of Howard county on the 24th day of February and 2d of March of this year, respectively; that said judgment and sentence were rendered and pronounced by virtue of a conviction in said court on a charge of perjury, and, further, that at the time that said court was in session in Howard county that same was convened without legal authority, and that there was no jurisdiction to try him; that the regular term of said court was on the fifth Monday after the first Monday in February, which was the 8th day of March, 1909, and that the term of court at which he was tried and convicted convened on the 15th day of February, 1909; that the term of court at which he was so convicted was convened and held by virtue of an act of the Thirty-First Legislature, approved February 3, 1909 (Gen. Laws 1909, p. 10, c. 8) and that by its terms such act went into immediate effect; that said act is unconstitutional and void, for the reason that same deprives the county of Borden of two terms of district court, as provided in article 5, § 7, of the Constitution of this state.
In the recent case of Nobles v. State (decided on the 24th day of November of this year) 123 S. W. 126, it was held that this act should be given such construction as would authorize and permit the holding of two terms of court for the current year in Borden county, and that the district courts in that district should be held during the current year under the old law. This seems to be the settled rule in this state. Ex parte Murphy, 27 Tex. App. 492, 11 S. W. 487; Graves v. State, 6 Tex. App. 228; Wilson v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 373, 35 S. W. 390, 38 S. W. 624, 39 S. W. 373; Womack v. Womack, 17 Tex. 1; Prescott v. Linney, 75 Tex. 616, 12 S. W. 1128. It results that, inasmuch as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Martinez
...Ex parte Kramer, 19 Tex. App. 123; James v. State, 21 Tex. App. 353, 17 S. W. 422; Mato v. State, 19 Tex. App. 112; Thompson v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 437, 123 S. W. 612. This rule is also the rule in the Supreme Court of the United States. Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 5 Sup. Ct. 935, 29 ......
-
Ex Parte Jarvis
...which there was no appeal, and habeas corpus was the only remedy. In Ex parte Ogle (Tex. Cr. App.) 61 S. W. 122, and Ex parte Thompson, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 437, 123 S. W. 612, no remedy was available save that of habeas corpus. In Ex parte Roquemore, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 282, 131 S. W. 1101, 32 L. R. ......
-
Staples v. State
...in this character of case, and under such circumstances we do not think a plea of former jeopardy is sustained. In Ex parte Thompson, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 438, 123 S. W. 612, it was held that a conviction at a term of court not authorized by law is invalid, and must be treated as a nullity; that ......
-
Quinn v. Dickinson
...spring term in accordance with the provisions of the act of March 25, 1911, as was expressly held in the case of Ex parte L. W. Thompson, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 437, 123 S. W. 612, and in Nobles v. State, Tex. Cr. R. 307, 123 S. W. 126, and in Bowden v. Crawford, 103 Tex. 181, 125 S. W. 5. The dist......