Ex parte Willis

259 S.W.2d 190, 156 Tex. Crim. 1, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1490
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 10, 1950
DocketNo. 24872
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 S.W.2d 190 (Ex parte Willis) 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 Willis, 259 S.W.2d 190, 156 Tex. Crim. 1, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1490 (Tex. 1950).

Opinion

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Relator, in original application to this court, alleges that he is illegally restrained of his liberty because he has served his full sentence of three years, received in Bexar County on June 23, 1948. It is also shown that he received a three year sentence in Wilbarger County on July 2, 1948. No claim is made in the petition that his prison record is such as to give him credit sufficient to have satisfied either of these sentences.

This court will not take evidence in a matter of this character unless substantial allegations are made raising a question which, if settled according to relator’s contention, would warrant the relief prayed for.

Attached to relator’s application is a certified copy of the sentence in Cause No. 4496, State of Texas v. L. B. Willis, in Wilbarger County. A paragraph attempting to make this sentence cumulative with some other sentence reads as follows: “And this sentence is here made accumulative with the sentence in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas, as where he was sentenced as Leonard B. Willis, or with any other sentence that he may have received. It shall not be concurrent.”

Under the many decisions of this court, the description of the sentence to which the one before us should be cumulative is [2]*2not sufficient to identify the same with that degree of certainty which will direct the penitentiary authorities in its observation. See Bland v. State, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 267, 167 S.W. 2d 761. This indefiniteness seems to be relied upon by relator as ground for his discharge. While we think it is not effective, the application for writ or habeas corpus is refused because no ground is alleged which would authorize evidence in support of the application.

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

Related

Wheat v. State
172 Tex. Crim. 259 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 S.W.2d 190, 156 Tex. Crim. 1, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-willis-texcrimapp-1950.