Marshall v. State

• Decision Date: 15 April 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 3091.)
• Citation: 166 S.W. 722
• Parties: MARSHALL v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

166 S.W. 722

MARSHALL v. STATE.

(No. 3091.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 15, 1914.

Rehearing Denied May 13, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Grayson County; M. H. Garnett, Judge.

Randell Marshall was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Spearman Webb and Hamp P. Abney, both of Sherman, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and sentenced to one year's confinement in the penitentiary. The record in this case presents but one question that need be discussed; in fact, in his brief this is the only question presented by appellant. The facts agreed to show that appellant was indicted August 9, 1913; was tried August 18, 1913, in the district court of the Fifty-Ninth district, and the jury returned a verdict stating: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment," assessing no penalty. Thereafter, the court entered a judgment on this verdict, and on September 13th sentenced appellant to serve a term in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than three years. The appellant did not appeal from this judgment and sentence, but two days after sentence was pronounced, on September 15, 1913, he sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the judge of the Fifteenth judicial district, and upon hearing was remanded. From that judgment he appealed to this court, and this court, in the case of Ex parte Randell Marshall, 161 S. W. 114, relieved him of said judgment and sentence, holding that they were unauthorized and void, and remanded relator for another trial.

When the case was again called in the Fifty-Ninth district court, appellant entered a plea of former jeopardy, and, while there is a motion to strike it out on the ground that the plea is insufficient, we will not pass on that question, as the matter presented is one of importance, and likely to often arise, and should be definitely settled.

In the first place we will say that, had not the former judgment and sentence been absolutely void, we could have given no relief under the writ of habeas corpus. As said in Church on Habeas Corpus, § 353: "An erroneous sentence rendered by an inferior court having jurisdiction of the person, place, and subject-matter cannot be successfully attacked upon habeas corpus, unless it is so far erroneous as to be absolutely void." Our own decisions have always followed this rule. Ex parte Japan, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 482, 38 S. W. 43; Ex parte Dickerson, 30 Tex. App. 448, 17 S. W. 1076, and authorities cited. The reason why the sentence and judgment were held void was that the law under which they were rendered and entered was held void, and the court had no authority to enter such judgment and sentence. And a plea of former jeopardy, nor any other plea, cannot be based upon void judgments.

In Bishop's Crim. Proc. § 1005 (3d Ed.), it is said: "The test is that if the verdict sufficiently finds anything, whether for or against the defendant, judgment will be rendered on the one side or the other for what is thus found; otherwise the work of the jury will be treated as null, the judgment if entered will be arrested, and the defendant may be tried anew" — citing authorities. And this is the rule adopted in this court in the case of Dubose v. State, 13 Tex. App. 424, wherein Judge White quoted the above excerpt, and said: "His first trial resulted in the following verdict rendered by the jury, viz.: `We, the jury, find the defendant, John Dubose, guilty as charged in the indictment, and assess his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for life.' Judgment was rendered on this verdict, but upon motion of defendant in arrest it was set aside and a new trial awarded him. Though not shown specifically by the record, doubtless the motion was sustained upon the ground that the verdict failed to find the degree of murder of which the jury ascertained defendant to be guilty, which fact is made essential by statute in verdicts of convictions for murder. Penal Code, art. 607; Buster v. State, 42 Tex. 315; Brown v. State, 3 Tex. App. 295; Krebs v. State, 3 Tex. App. 349; Colbath v. State, 2 Tex. App. 391; Boothe v. State, 4 Tex. App. 202; Nettles v. State, 5 Tex. App. 386. On the second trial, which ensued after the new trial above noticed was awarded, defendant set up the former trial and conviction and the new trial in a special plea, claiming that they operated as an acquittal. This plea of former acquittal was excepted to by the district attorney, and on his motion was stricken out by the court. It is urged on this present appeal that the court erred in sustaining said exceptions, and in striking out said plea. In Simco v. State, 9 Tex. App. 338, this court had occasion to discuss the nature, character, and effect of the special pleas of former jeopardy, autrefois acquit and convict, and one of the rules laid down as established both by statute and decision was that a defendant is not exempt from a second trial for the same offense where a new trial has been granted on his motion, and that if he moves in arrest of judgment, or applies to the court to vacate a judgment already rendered, for any cause, and his motion prevails, he will be presumed to waive any objection to being put a second time in jeopardy, and so he may ordinarily be tried anew. Code Crim. Proc. art. 20; 1 Bish. Crim. Law (4th Ed.) § 844. * * * Such being the law, and the verdict of the jury being clearly insufficient and void, because it failed to find the degree of murder of which the defendant was found guilty, it was most clearly the duty of the court to declare it a nullity, set it aside, and arrest the judgment to be rendered upon it; and, under such circumstances, whether the new trial is awarded ex mero motu by the court or upon defendant's motion, the rule is the same; defendant may again be placed upon trial, and a plea of former jeopardy will not avail him. And, the verdict being a nullity, it could not possibly operate an acquittal of murder in the first degree. See Buster v. State, 42 Tex. 315. It was not error, therefore, for the court to strike out defendant's special plea and hold him to a second trial, as was done." To the same effect is Sterling v. State, 25 Tex. App. 721, 9 S. W. 45, 8 Am. St. Rep. 452, and Garza v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 360, 46 S. W. 242, 73 Am. St. Rep. 927.

Appellant relies on the case of Grisham v. State, 19 Tex. App. 504, an opinion by Judge White, who also rendered the opinions in the cases of Dubose and Sterling, hereinbefore referred to, and Judge White certainly intended to announce no different rule to that announced by him in the Dubose Case, rendered prior to the Grisham opinion, and in the Sterling Case rendered by him subsequent to that time, and in the Grisham Case he makes it plain that the reason he held the plea good was the verdict and judgment in the Grisham Case were valid, and defendant had suffered at least a part of the punishment, and the judgment was set aside by the court without the solicitation of the defendant. He had in no way sought to have himself relieved from the effects of the verdict and judgment.

The facts in this case do not bring appellant within the rule there announced, but in this case, within two days after the rendition of the sentence, appellant moves by applying for habeas corpus to be relieved of any and all punishment under the judgment, sentence, and verdict theretofore rendered and entered, and on his motion and solicitation, and by virtue of proceedings brought by him, he is by this court relieved from undergoing the penalty fixed by the judgment and sentence; this court holding the verdict was insufficient in law upon which to base the sentence and judgment.

However, in his brief appellant contends that he was "constructively" in the penitentiary from September 13 to November 13, 1913, the date this court rendered the opinion holding the judgment and sentence void. We do not think the facts in this case justify any such conclusion, for two days after sentence he applied for and was granted a...