Mitchell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Mitchell v. State

79 S.W. 26, 46 Tex. Crim. 258, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 108

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 24, 1904

DocketNo. 2950.

StatusPublished

This text of 79 S.W. 26 (Mitchell v. State) 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

Mitchell v. State, 79 S.W. 26, 46 Tex. Crim. 258, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 108 (Tex. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault. The record is before us without bill of exceptions or statements of facts. The contention is that the county court was without jurisdiction to try the case because of the improper filing of the complaint. The motion for new trial alleges, and the file marks on the complaint sustain the allegation, that the complaint was taken by a justice of the peace and filed in his court on the 15th of the month ; and in the county court on the 19th of the same month. The basis of the contention is that the complaint was “functus officio,” and could not be used in the county court as a predicate for the information. *259 There is no merit in this proposition. If the case was one in which the justice of the peace had final jurisdiction, the complaint could not have been transferred; but it was one of which the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction except to take the complaint or sit as an examining court. Whether he did sit as an examining court is not shown by this record; but it is shown by the file marks that the complaint, after being taken by the justice was filed in the county court. This was legal and proper. There, being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed; Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault. The record is before us without bill of exceptions or statements of facts. The contention is that the county court was without jurisdiction to try the case because of the improper filing of the complaint. The motion for new trial alleges, and the file marks on the complaint sustain the allegation, that the complaint was taken by a justice of the peace and filed in his court on the 15th of the month ; and in the county court on the 19th of the same month. The basis of the contention is that the complaint was “functus officio,” and could not be used in the county court as a predicate for the information. *259 There is no merit in this proposition. If the case was one in which the justice of the peace had final jurisdiction, the complaint could not have been transferred; but it was one of which the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction except to take the complaint or sit as an examining court. Whether he did sit as an examining court is not shown by this record; but it is shown by the file marks that the complaint, after being taken by the justice was filed in the county court. This was legal and proper. There, being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed; Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.W. 26, 46 Tex. Crim. 258, 1904 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-state-texcrimapp-1904.