Lawley v. State, 13299.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 13299.,13299. |
| Parties | LAWLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge.
Ira Lawley was held in contempt by the district court, and he appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Robert Cralle, of Groesbeck, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Canton, for the State.
Appellant was held in contempt by the judge of the Fifty-Fourth district court at Waco. From the judgment appellant gave notice of appeal, and entered into recognizance to abide the judgment of this court. On October 15th an opinion was delivered affirming the judgment. No briefs either for the state or appellant were furnished on original submission.
Appellant now presents a motion for rehearing in which is incorporated many things which might be appropriate to submit in a hearing on the merits in the trial court, but which absolutely have no place in a motion for rehearing.
We are concerned with one thing only in the motion, and that is the proposition that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal. No doubt exists as to the correctness of the proposition. An appeal does not lie from a judgment of contempt. Crow v. State, 24 Tex. 12; Ex parte Kilgore, 3 Tex. App. 249; Carter v. State, 4 Tex. App. 165; Borrer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 63 S. W. 630; Borrer v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 63 S. W. 1133; Long v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 403, 199 S. W. 619, 620, in which the following language is found: "From a judgment for contempt this court can give relief only on writ of habeas corpus when the relator is in custody." Pegram v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 176, 161 S. W. 458. Many other cases will be found collated in Texas Jurisprudence, vol. 9, under §§ 45 and 48.
Our former opinion is withdrawn, and the appeal is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Padfield v. McIntosh
...Tex.Civ.App., 245 S.W.2d 557; Borrer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 63 S.W. 630; Hudgens v. Yancey, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W. 347; Lawley v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 14, 36 S.W.2d 1035; Tims v. Tims, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 995, writ refused. In the last cited case it is said: 'It has been the well settl......
-
Starr County v. Laughlin
...is by means of habeas corpus. Hudgens v. Yancey, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W. 347; Borrer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 63 S.W. 630; Lawley v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 14, 36 S.W.2d 1035, and cases there Se also Mitchell v. Mitchell, Tex.Civ.App., 266 S.W.2d 252; Ex parte Smart, 152 Tex. 229, 256 S.W.2d 398......
-
Mitchell v. Mitchell
...by means of habeas corpus. Hudgens v. Yancey, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W. 347; Borrer v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W. 630; Lawley v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 14, 36 S.W.2d 1035, and cases there But if we were of the opinion, which we are not, that this court had jurisdiction in this appeal from the ......
-
Tims v. Tims
...by means of habeas corpus. Hudgens v. Yancey, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W. 347; Borrer v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W. 630; Lawley v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 14, 36 S.W.2d 1035, and cases there Appellant concedes such to have been the law until 1942 when the Supreme Court decided the case of Harbiso......