Ex Parte Loos

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ex Parte Loos

81 S.W.2d 527, 128 Tex. Crim. 453, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 234

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 20, 1935

DocketNo. 17543.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 S.W.2d 527 (Ex Parte Loos) 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 Loos, 81 S.W.2d 527, 128 Tex. Crim. 453, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 234 (Tex. 1935).

Pincite

Opinions

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Relator is held by virtue of a Governor’s warrant issued by the Governor of the State of Texas upon requisition from the State of Oregon. He sought his release by way of habeas corpus and was remanded to custody by the district court of Tarrant County. Hence this appeal.

Relator is under indictment in the circuit court of the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon, on a charge of arson alleged to have been committed on the 25th day of July, 1930. In the habeas corpus proceeding in the district court of Tarrant County relator testified that he was not in the State of Oregon on the date the offense was committed, but was in California. Witnesses for the respondent took issue with relator and testified that he was in the State of Oregon when the offense was committed, but was not in the county where the fire occurred.

Relator contends that under the holding of this court in Ex parte Hogue, 17 S. W. (2d) 1047, and Ex parte Baird, 17 S. W. (2d) 1049, he is entitled to be discharged. In the cases mentioned it was uncontroverted that the alleged fugitive was not within the confines of the demanding state at the time of *454 the commission of the alleged offense. Under the circumstances, this court held that he could not be a fugitive from justice within the terms of the law. In the instant case the proof on the part of the respondent showed that relator was within the confines of the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. Manifestly, the cited cases have no application. The fact that relator was not in the county where the offense was alleged to have been committed on July 25, 1930, but was in another county of the demanding state, might raise the affirmative defense of alibi, but that is a question for the demanding state. We quote from Branch’s Annotated Penal Code, sec. 248, as follows: “It is not error on a habeas corpus hearing to refuse to hear evidence as to the guilt or innocence of the alleged fugitive, that being a question for the demanding state.”

See Ex parte Denning, 100 S. W., 401; Ex parte Hancock, 170 S. W., 145; Ex parte McDaniel, 173 S. W., 1019; Ex parte Brown, 178 S. W., 366; Ex parte Pinkus, 25 S. W. (2d) 334.

Believing that relator was properly remanded, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Relator is held by virtue of a Governor’s warrant issued by the Governor of the State of Texas upon requisition from the State of Oregon. He sought his release by way of habeas corpus and was remanded to custody by the district court of Tarrant County. Hence this appeal.

Relator is under indictment in the circuit court of the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon, on a charge of arson alleged to have been committed on the 25th day of July, 1930. In the habeas corpus proceeding in the district court of Tarrant County relator testified that he was not in the State of Oregon on the date the offense was committed, but was in California. Witnesses for the respondent took issue with relator and testified that he was in the State of Oregon when the offense was committed, but was not in the county where the fire occurred.

Relator contends that under the holding of this court in Ex parte Hogue, 17 S. W. (2d) 1047, and Ex parte Baird, 17 S. W. (2d) 1049, he is entitled to be discharged. In the cases mentioned it was uncontroverted that the alleged fugitive was not within the confines of the demanding state at the time of *454 the commission of the alleged offense. Under the circumstances, this court held that he could not be a fugitive from justice within the terms of the law. In the instant case the proof on the part of the respondent showed that relator was within the confines of the demanding state at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. Manifestly, the cited cases have no application. The fact that relator was not in the county where the offense was alleged to have been committed on July 25, 1930, but was in another county of the demanding state, might raise the affirmative defense of alibi, but that is a question for the demanding state. We quote from Branch’s Annotated Penal Code, sec. 248, as follows: “It is not error on a habeas corpus hearing to refuse to hear evidence as to the guilt or innocence of the alleged fugitive, that being a question for the demanding state.”

See Ex parte Denning, 100 S. W., 401; Ex parte Hancock, 170 S. W., 145; Ex parte McDaniel, 173 S. W., 1019; Ex parte Brown, 178 S. W., 366; Ex parte Pinkus, 25 S. W. (2d) 334.

Believing that relator was properly remanded, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 S.W.2d 527, 128 Tex. Crim. 453, 1935 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-loos-texcrimapp-1935.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack