Ex Parte Bazemore

430 S.W.2d 205, 1968 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 829
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 19, 1968
Docket41411
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 430 S.W.2d 205 (Ex Parte Bazemore) 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
Ex Parte Bazemore, 430 S.W.2d 205, 1968 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 829 (Tex. 1968).

Opinions

OPINION

BELCHER, Judge.

This is an application for writ of habeas corpus under Art. 11.07 Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., brought by relator seeking his release from the Texas Department of Corrections. The relator contends that he is illegally confined on the ground that the order cumulating the sentences by virtue of which he is confined is insufficient.

On September 27, 1962, the relator was convicted of burglary in Cause No. 33,850 in the Criminal District Court of Travis County, and his punishment was assessed at nine years.

The Criminal District Court of Travis County was created and established to begin in September, 1957, and it continued until it was designated and created as the 147th District Court of Travis County in 1963.

On March 6, 1964, the relator was convicted of burglary in Cause No. 4111 in the District Court of Comal County with punishment assessed at three years and the judgment contains cumulative provisions. The order of cumulation reads as follows:

“The sentence in the case to begin after the said Billy Earl Basemore shall have served the time assessed against him in Cause No. 33850, on the Criminal Docket [206]*206of the District Court of Travis County, Texas which said cause was a final conviction of a felony, to-wit: a Burglary.”

The 1957 statute creating the Criminal District Court of Travis County provided “that no criminal case shall be transferred from the Criminal District Court to any of the district courts of Travis County, nor shall any civil case be transferred from any district court to the Criminal District Court herein created.”

The 1957 statute further provided that after its effective date the judges of the 53rd, 98th and 126th District Courts of Travis County shall be relieved of the duty of impanelling grand juries, and the district clerk shall transfer all the criminal cases pending in the three above numbered courts to the Criminal District Court of Travis County; that all process, bail bonds and recognizances shall be the same as if originally made returnable to the said Criminal District Court; and a grand jury shall be impanelled by the Criminal District Court in the same manner as is now required by law in the district courts.

We are not here concerned with the question of the jurisdiction of other district courts of Travis County under the constitution. According to the statute (Art. 52-61a, V.A.C.C.P.) the Criminal District Court of Travis County was the only court in Travis County trying criminal cases in 1962. Therefore, the reference in Cause No. 4111 in the District Court of Comal County, to Cause No. 33,850 on the criminal docket of the District Court of Travis County could only have been to the docket of the Criminal District Court of Travis County, which at the time of the cumulation order was the 147th District Court of Travis County.

The cumulation order meets the requirements of definiteness and is sufficient on its face to effect its purpose without resort to evidence in aid thereof and to convey to the Department of Corrections dear and unequivocal order of the District Court of Comal County how long to detain the applicant herein. Ex parte Collier, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 377, 243 S.W.2d 177.

The conclusions of law of the district judge that petitioner is now unlawfully confined is not binding on this court. Ex parte Young, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 824; Ex parte Carpenter, Tex.Cr.App., 425 S.W.2d 821.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

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

Related

Ex Parte McCormick
645 S.W.2d 801 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Ex Parte Harris
593 S.W.2d 330 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Ex Parte Williams
561 S.W.2d 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Ex Parte Hagans
558 S.W.2d 457 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Ex Parte Combs
545 S.W.2d 171 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Ex Parte Dickey
543 S.W.2d 99 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Ex Parte Jewel
535 S.W.2d 362 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1976)
Ex Parte Davila
530 S.W.2d 543 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Ward v. State
523 S.W.2d 681 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Ex Parte Slaton
484 S.W.2d 102 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Ex Parte Stauts
482 S.W.2d 638 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Ex Parte Young
479 S.W.2d 45 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Ex Parte Marez
464 S.W.2d 866 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Ex parte Gardner
430 S.W.2d 209 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Ex Parte Bazemore
430 S.W.2d 205 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
430 S.W.2d 205, 1968 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-bazemore-texcrimapp-1968.