Ex Parte Mitchell

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ex Parte Mitchell

70 S.W.2d 175, 126 Tex. Crim. 25, 1934 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 514

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMarch 28, 1934

DocketNo. 16322.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 S.W.2d 175 (Ex Parte Mitchell) 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 Mitchell, 70 S.W.2d 175, 126 Tex. Crim. 25, 1934 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 514 (Tex. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge. —

The State’s motion for rehearing exhibits a copy of the judgment of conviction in appellant’s main case, carrying a penalty of ninety-nine years in the penitentiary. The motion for rehearing seeks to have the original opinion herein withdrawn and the appeal dismissed upon the ground that appellant’s conviction carrying a penalty of ninety-nine years, would render ineffective the judgment of this court granting bail. The judgment in the main case has been this day affirmed. See Mitchell v. State, * No. 16516, this day handed down. In the- light of the disposition of the main case, this court would be powerless to grant bail under appellant’s application in the matter before us. As said by this court in Ex parte Crow, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 142: “The writ of habeas corpus is only used for the purpose of relieving from illegal restraint.” Ex parte Coupland, 26 Texas, 387, and Ex parte Trader, 24 Texas App., 393, are cited. This court being powerless to grant bail, the reversal or affirmance of the judgment in appellant’s habeas corpus appeal would be a useless thing.

For the reason indicated we are of opinion that the appeal herein should be dismissed, and it is accordingly so ordered, and the opinion heretofore rendered in this case will be withdrawn.

Dismissed.

*

Rehearing pending.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge. —

The State’s motion for rehearing exhibits a copy of the judgment of conviction in appellant’s main case, carrying a penalty of ninety-nine years in the penitentiary. The motion for rehearing seeks to have the original opinion herein withdrawn and the appeal dismissed upon the ground that appellant’s conviction carrying a penalty of ninety-nine years, would render ineffective the judgment of this court granting bail. The judgment in the main case has been this day affirmed. See Mitchell v. State, * No. 16516, this day handed down. In the- light of the disposition of the main case, this court would be powerless to grant bail under appellant’s application in the matter before us. As said by this court in Ex parte Crow, 89 Texas Crim. Rep., 142: “The writ of habeas corpus is only used for the purpose of relieving from illegal restraint.” Ex parte Coupland, 26 Texas, 387, and Ex parte Trader, 24 Texas App., 393, are cited. This court being powerless to grant bail, the reversal or affirmance of the judgment in appellant’s habeas corpus appeal would be a useless thing.

For the reason indicated we are of opinion that the appeal herein should be dismissed, and it is accordingly so ordered, and the opinion heretofore rendered in this case will be withdrawn.

Dismissed.

*

Rehearing pending.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.W.2d 175, 126 Tex. Crim. 25, 1934 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-mitchell-texcrimapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack