Ex Parte Seals

255 S.W.2d 215, 158 Tex. Crim. 329, 1952 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1406

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 3, 1952
• Docket: 26098
• Status: Published

Opinions

MORRISON, Judge.

The relator was convicted in the corporation court of the city of Houston under a complaint charging a primary offense of speeding; and, in order to enhance the punishment, a prior conviction of speeding was plead.

Relator appealed this conviction to the county court at law, where he was again convicted and a capias pro fine issued. It is from confinement by virtue of such capias that relator applied to the criminal district court of Harris County for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was granted; a hearing was had; the court remanded relator to custody; and he appealed.

The ordinance under which relator was charged provides a maximum penalty Tor a first conviction of $200.00.

Article 61, P. C., reads as follows:

“If it be shown on the trial of a misdemeanor that the defendant has been once before convicted of the same offense, he shall on a second conviction receive double the punishment prescribed for such offense in ordinary cases, and upon a third or any subsequent conviction for the same offense, the.-punishment shall be increased so as not to exceed four times the penalty in ordinary cases.” -

It will thus be seen that the maximum.penalty for the offense charged in the complaint under which relator was prosecuted, by operation of Article 61, P. C., was $400.00.

The jurisdiction of a corporation court is limited to cases where the maximum fine that may be assessed does not exceed $200.00. Article 62, C. C. P.

Since the corporation court did not have jurisdiction to try the offense charged, a judgment of conviction thereunder is void, and the relief prayed for should be granted.

The judgment remanding relator is reversed, and the relátor is ordered discharged.