Case ID: tex-crim_108/html/0617-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte Charlie Knox.
    No. 11619.
    Delivered January 25, 1928.
    Habeas Corpus — To Secure Bail — Rule Stated.
    Where appellant was indicted for robbery of a bank by exhibiting firearms, no shots being fired in the assault, under numerous authorities his case was bailable and the judgment of the lower court denying bail is reversed and bail granted in the sum of $15,000. See Art. 1, Sec. 11, Constitution. Ex Parte Smith, 23 Tex. Crim. App. 100, and other eases cited.
    Appeal from the District Court of Limestone County. Tried below before the Hon. W. R. Boyd, Judge.
    Appeal from an order of the District Court denying bail. Reversed and bail granted in the sum of $15,000.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Ira Lawley, Kennedy & Erigledow and L. W. Sheppeard of Groesbeck, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant was indicted for robbery by the use of firearms. He sought through habeas corpus proceeding to be released on bail. From an order remanding him without bail this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant and two others robbed a bank at Tehuacana, in Limestone County, and obtained something over $1,600. Appellant and one other robber exhibited pistols and presented them at the bank officers, by means of which the robbery was effected. No shots were fired; no one was injured, the reason, perhaps, being that no resistance was offered.

The principles controlling where the question of bail is involved have been so frequently discussed it is useless to again review them. (See Art. 1, Sec. II, Constitution; Ex Parte Smith, 23 Tex. Crim. App. 100, 5 S. W. 99; Ex Parte Beacon, 12 Tex. Crim. App. 318; Ex Parte Evers, 29 Tex. Crim. App. 539; 16 S. W. 343; Ex Parte Russell, 71 Tex. Crim. Rep. 377, 160 S. W. 75; Ex Parte Young, 87 Tex. Crim. Rep. 413, 222 S. W. 242.) The case of Scott v. State, 90 Tex. Crim. Rep. 201, 234 S. W. 220, is direct authority on the point that appellant was entitled to bail.

The judgment refusing bail is reversed and bail granted in the sum of $15,000.00.

Reversed and bail granted.