Ex Parte Williford

• Decision Date: 14 November 1906
• Citation: 100 S.W. 919
• Parties: Ex parte WILLIFORD.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

100 S.W. 919

Ex parte WILLIFORD.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 14, 1906.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1907.

Habeas corpus proceedings by Lige Williford. Relator remanded to custody.

Mounts & Jones, for applicant. E. A. Tharp, Co. Atty., and Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

This is an original application for the writ of habeas corpus. Relator was prosecuted, by complaint filed in the justice court of precinct No. 3 of Wood county, for the offense of swindling, a misdemeanor. The affidavit was made before the justice of the peace of said precinct on April 17, 1905. The complaint was filed in the justice court, and the warrant issued thereon by the justice. Relator was afterwards arrested and lodged in the county jail of Wood county. Soon afterwards he informed the officers he desired to enter a plea of guilty to the charge. Some three or four days elapsed before any action was taken. During this time relator frequently expressed a desire to plead guilty to the charge. On June 20, 1905, the complaint charging swindling was filed in the county court of Wood county, and the case was docketed in said court. An information was immediately filed in said court, based on said complaint, charging the offense of swindling. Relator appeared in open court, and, being fully informed of the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of his pleading guilty, he stated to the court that he desired to plead guilty. Thereupon the information was read, and plea of guilty entered, and a fine of $5 and two days' confinement in the county jail assessed against him. Failing to pay the fine, he was committed to jail. Afterwards, on June 27, 1905, relator applied for the writ of habeas corpus before Hon. J. O. Rouse, county judge, alleging that he was illegally restrained of his liberty by the sheriff. The county judge refused the writ. He made an application for the writ of habeas corpus to this court, whereupon relator was granted bail, and the hearing set down before the court.

If relator had any rights in the premises, they could have been secured and maintained by prosecuting an appeal from said judgment of conviction (though the writer hereof does not think he had such right); but he did not see fit to do this, and applied to this court for the writ of habeas corpus. We hold that under the circumstances relator was not entitled to his discharge by sheer force of the fact that the complaint or information upon which ...