Ex Parte Teague

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ex Parte Teague

112 S.W.2d 192, 133 Tex. Crim. 509, 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 636

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 24, 1937

DocketNo. 19507.

StatusPublished

This text of 112 S.W.2d 192 (Ex Parte Teague) 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 Teague, 112 S.W.2d 192, 133 Tex. Crim. 509, 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 636 (Tex. 1937).

Pincite

Opinions

CHRISTIAN, Judge. —

Relator was convicted of a misdemeanor and his punishment assessed at a fine of one dollar. The costs amounted to $13.75. On the 9th of July, 1937, relator paid $10.00 on the fine and costs, but declined to pay $4.75 which had been taxed as fees of the constable. On the 10th day of July, 1937, the justice of the peace issued a capias pro fine, by virtue of which the relator was arrested and lodged in jail. Thereafter he made application for a writ of habeas corpus on the allegation that he was illegally restrained of his liberty. The writ having been awarded, a hearing was had and he was remanded to custody. Hence this appeal.

Relator seeks in this proceeding to have the court declare that the Constable was not entitled to fees in the amount of $4.75 for the reason that he failed to render the services entitling him to such amount. The items embraced, in the constable’s bill are in amounts authorized by the statute. If the relator thought that such items had been erroneously taxed as costs he had his legal remedy. Art. 1016, C. C. P., reads as follows:

“Whenever costs have been erroneously taxed against a defendant, he may have the error corrected, and the costs properly taxed, upon filing a written motion for that purpose in the court in which the case is then or was last pending. Such motion may be made at any time within one year after the final disposition of the case in which the costs were taxed, and not afterward. Notice of such motion shall be given to each party to be affected thereby, as in the case of a similar motion in a civil action.”

The record fails to show that the motion contemplated by the statute -was filed by the relator with the justice of the peace. Under the circumstances, it is our conclusion that he is not entitled to seek relief by way of habeas corpus. See Terrell v. State, 152 Sou., 612.

The judgment remanding relator is affirmed.

Affirmed.

*511 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 was convicted of a misdemeanor and his punishment assessed at a fine of one dollar. The costs amounted to $13.75. On the 9th of July, 1937, relator paid $10.00 on the fine and costs, but declined to pay $4.75 which had been taxed as fees of the constable. On the 10th day of July, 1937, the justice of the peace issued a capias pro fine, by virtue of which the relator was arrested and lodged in jail. Thereafter he made application for a writ of habeas corpus on the allegation that he was illegally restrained of his liberty. The writ having been awarded, a hearing was had and he was remanded to custody. Hence this appeal.

Relator seeks in this proceeding to have the court declare that the Constable was not entitled to fees in the amount of $4.75 for the reason that he failed to render the services entitling him to such amount. The items embraced, in the constable’s bill are in amounts authorized by the statute. If the relator thought that such items had been erroneously taxed as costs he had his legal remedy. Art. 1016, C. C. P., reads as follows:

“Whenever costs have been erroneously taxed against a defendant, he may have the error corrected, and the costs properly taxed, upon filing a written motion for that purpose in the court in which the case is then or was last pending. Such motion may be made at any time within one year after the final disposition of the case in which the costs were taxed, and not afterward. Notice of such motion shall be given to each party to be affected thereby, as in the case of a similar motion in a civil action.”

The record fails to show that the motion contemplated by the statute -was filed by the relator with the justice of the peace. Under the circumstances, it is our conclusion that he is not entitled to seek relief by way of habeas corpus. See Terrell v. State, 152 Sou., 612.

The judgment remanding relator is affirmed.

Affirmed.

*511 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)

112 S.W.2d 192, 133 Tex. Crim. 509, 1937 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-teague-texcrimapp-1937.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack