Boehme v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Boehme v. State

264 S.W.2d 118, 159 Tex. Crim. 358, 1954 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2296

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 3, 1954

Docket26807

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 264 S.W.2d 118 (Boehme v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boehme v. State, 264 S.W.2d 118, 159 Tex. Crim. 358, 1954 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2296 (Tex. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant has heretofore been charged with a criminal offense, and at his trial therefor he was found to have been insane at the time of the commission of the offense as well as at the time of the trial. Therefore, he was confined at the Texas State Hospital at Terrell for the insane. After having spent sometime therein he sued out a writ of habeas corpus to this court claiming that he had recovered his sanity and requesting a trial therefor. See Ex parte Boehme, 158 Tex. Cr. Rep. 278, 255 S.W. (2d) 206. In that case he was remanded to the district court of Dallas County where the question of his mental ca *359 pacity could be gone into. He was not tried at that time in the court in Dallas County and again appeared before this court in Ex parte Boehme, 158 Tex. Cr. Rep. 597, 259 S.W. (2d) 201.

In the latter cause this court said:

“Treating the application as a petition for a hearing to determine appellant’s present insanity, this court does not have jurisdiction because same is not a criminal proceeding nor an appeal in a criminal case.”

Therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Appellant is now herein present on an attempted appeal from a verdict finding him insane at this time.

This court has appellate jurisdiction only of criminal cases. A lunacy trial is not a criminal case and therefore is not appealable. See Art. 5, Sec. 5, Constitution of Texas; Millikin v. Jeffrey, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 299 S.W. 435; Darnell v. State, 24 Tex. App. 6, 5 S.W. 522, 38 L.R.A. 585.

See also De Silva v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 499, 267 S.W. 271, in which'it was held that an appeal from a trial relative to the insanity of an accused person does not lie to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

See Ex parte Quesada, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 116, 29 S.W. 473; Ex parte Morris, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 256, 257 S.W. 894; Ex parte Minor, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 634, 27 S.W. (2d) 805; Morgan v. State, 135 Tex. Cr. R. 76, 117 S.W. (2d) 76; Hardin v. State, 248 S.W. (2d) 487.

In line with these decisions of the court, the appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant has heretofore been charged with a criminal offense, and at his trial therefor he was found to have been insane at the time of the commission of the offense as well as at the time of the trial. Therefore, he was confined at the Texas State Hospital at Terrell for the insane. After having spent sometime therein he sued out a writ of habeas corpus to this court claiming that he had recovered his sanity and requesting a trial therefor. See Ex parte Boehme, 158 Tex. Cr. Rep. 278, 255 S.W. (2d) 206. In that case he was remanded to the district court of Dallas County where the question of his mental ca *359 pacity could be gone into. He was not tried at that time in the court in Dallas County and again appeared before this court in Ex parte Boehme, 158 Tex. Cr. Rep. 597, 259 S.W. (2d) 201.

In the latter cause this court said:

“Treating the application as a petition for a hearing to determine appellant’s present insanity, this court does not have jurisdiction because same is not a criminal proceeding nor an appeal in a criminal case.”

Therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Appellant is now herein present on an attempted appeal from a verdict finding him insane at this time.

This court has appellate jurisdiction only of criminal cases. A lunacy trial is not a criminal case and therefore is not appealable. See Art. 5, Sec. 5, Constitution of Texas; Millikin v. Jeffrey, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 299 S.W. 435; Darnell v. State, 24 Tex. App. 6, 5 S.W. 522, 38 L.R.A. 585.

See also De Silva v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 499, 267 S.W. 271, in which'it was held that an appeal from a trial relative to the insanity of an accused person does not lie to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

See Ex parte Quesada, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 116, 29 S.W. 473; Ex parte Morris, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 256, 257 S.W. 894; Ex parte Minor, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 634, 27 S.W. (2d) 805; Morgan v. State, 135 Tex. Cr. R. 76, 117 S.W. (2d) 76; Hardin v. State, 248 S.W. (2d) 487.

In line with these decisions of the court, the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 S.W.2d 118, 159 Tex. Crim. 358, 1954 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boehme-v-state-texcrimapp-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack