Ex Parte Martinez

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ex Parte Martinez

386 S.W.2d 280, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1194

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 16, 1964

Docket37611

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 386 S.W.2d 280 (Ex Parte Martinez) 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 Martinez, 386 S.W.2d 280, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1194 (Tex. 1964).

Pincite

Opinions

McDonald, judge.

Petitioner, an inmate of the state penitentiary, brings this application for writ ■of habeas corpus in his own handwriting. When petitioner’s conviction reached this Court on appeal, the writer shared the view •of the majority and affirmed the case, from which position he has not departed. It is my view that the Juvenile Act and all hearings thereunder are civil and not criminal in nature. It necessarily follows that I do not believe that jeopardy attaches in juvenile courts as they are without jurisdiction of felony offenses.

My views are fully set forth in the •opinion written by me in Hultin v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 425, 351 S.W.2d 248, and in my dissenting opinions upon original submission and on rehearing in Garza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 369 S.W.2d 36. The writer’s views are further stated in his concurring •opinion in Ex parte Sawyer, Tex.Cr.App., 386 S.W.2d 275.

Presiding Judge Woodley concurs in the disposition of this cause, his position and reasons being stated in his original opinion upon the appeal of this case, Martinez v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 443, 350 S.W.2d 929.

Relief prayed for is denied.

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

McDonald, judge.

Petitioner, an inmate of the state penitentiary, brings this application for writ ■of habeas corpus in his own handwriting. When petitioner’s conviction reached this Court on appeal, the writer shared the view •of the majority and affirmed the case, from which position he has not departed. It is my view that the Juvenile Act and all hearings thereunder are civil and not criminal in nature. It necessarily follows that I do not believe that jeopardy attaches in juvenile courts as they are without jurisdiction of felony offenses.

My views are fully set forth in the •opinion written by me in Hultin v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 425, 351 S.W.2d 248, and in my dissenting opinions upon original submission and on rehearing in Garza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 369 S.W.2d 36. The writer’s views are further stated in his concurring •opinion in Ex parte Sawyer, Tex.Cr.App., 386 S.W.2d 275.

Presiding Judge Woodley concurs in the disposition of this cause, his position and reasons being stated in his original opinion upon the appeal of this case, Martinez v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 443, 350 S.W.2d 929.

Relief prayed for is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 S.W.2d 280, 1964 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-martinez-texcrimapp-1964.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack