Ex parte McCuistian

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ex parte McCuistian

99 S.W.2d 310, 131 Tex. Crim. 360, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 693

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 2, 1936

DocketNo. 18817

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 99 S.W.2d 310 (Ex parte McCuistian) 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 McCuistian, 99 S.W.2d 310, 131 Tex. Crim. 360, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 693 (Tex. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

KRUEGER, Judge.

The record before us shows that on the 8th day of October, A. D. 1936, the sheriff of Brown County by virtue of a capias pro fine arrested relator and confined him in the county jail. He applied to the Hon. A. E. Nabors, judge of the county court of said county, for a writ of habeas corpus and prayed that upon a hearing thereof he be discharged from custody. The writ was issued as prayed for. In obedience to said writ the sheriff produced relator at the time and place specified and stated that he had relator in custody and restrained him of his liberty by virtue of a capias pro fine issued by the clerk of said court upon a certain judgment, entered in cause number 6538, and styled State of Texas v. R. D. McCuistian, wherein relator was adjudged guilty of the offense of selling whisky in local opition territory and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $200.00 and confinement in the county jail for a term of sixty days, besides all costs. The sheriff attached to his responsive plea a copy of the information in said cause which seems to be in due form and also a copy of [361]*361the judgment of conviction. The judgment remanding relator recites that the court heard evidence, but no statement of facts accompanies the record. It appears to us that relator is seeking to substitute the writ of habeas corpus for the method of appeal. Such a proceeding has never been sanctioned by this court.

In the case of Ex parte Mears et al., 88 S. W. (2d) 100, this court speaking through Judge Lattimore said:

“We adhere to the well-considered and supported rule that when the facts in any case attempted to be brought here on habeas corpus show that the controversy could have been brought here in the regular channel of an appeal, we will decline to dispose of same by habeas corpus.”

Therefore the judgment of the trial court remanding relator to the custody of the sheriff until such time as the judgment of conviction shall have been satisfied is in all things 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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The record before us shows that on the 8th day of October, A. D. 1936, the sheriff of Brown County by virtue of a capias pro fine arrested relator and confined him in the county jail. He applied to the Hon. A. E. Nabors, judge of the county court of said county, for a writ of habeas corpus and prayed that upon a hearing thereof he be discharged from custody. The writ was issued as prayed for. In obedience to said writ the sheriff produced relator at the time and place specified and stated that he had relator in custody and restrained him of his liberty by virtue of a capias pro fine issued by the clerk of said court upon a certain judgment, entered in cause number 6538, and styled State of Texas v. R. D. McCuistian, wherein relator was adjudged guilty of the offense of selling whisky in local opition territory and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $200.00 and confinement in the county jail for a term of sixty days, besides all costs. The sheriff attached to his responsive plea a copy of the information in said cause which seems to be in due form and also a copy of [361]*361the judgment of conviction. The judgment remanding relator recites that the court heard evidence, but no statement of facts accompanies the record. It appears to us that relator is seeking to substitute the writ of habeas corpus for the method of appeal. Such a proceeding has never been sanctioned by this court.

In the case of Ex parte Mears et al., 88 S. W. (2d) 100, this court speaking through Judge Lattimore said:

“We adhere to the well-considered and supported rule that when the facts in any case attempted to be brought here on habeas corpus show that the controversy could have been brought here in the regular channel of an appeal, we will decline to dispose of same by habeas corpus.”

Therefore the judgment of the trial court remanding relator to the custody of the sheriff until such time as the judgment of conviction shall have been satisfied is in all things 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)

99 S.W.2d 310, 131 Tex. Crim. 360, 1936 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-mccuistian-texcrimapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack