Case ID: sw2d_3/html/0810-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte WEBB.
    (No. 11673.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 7, 1928.
    Habeas corpus &wkey;»29 — Judgment requiring child’s incarceration under juvenile statutes, without notice to parent or guardian, is void and open to attack by habeas corpus (Code Cr. Proa 1925, art. 1087).
    Under Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 1087, judgment requiring incarceration of child under juvenile statutes, entered on trial had without notice to parent or guardian of child, is void, in sense that it is open to attack by way of habeas corpus.
    Appeal from, Criminal District Court, Harris County; Whit Boyd, Judge.
    Habeas corpus proceeding by Bucius Webb to secure discharge from custody. From an order refusing to discharge petitioner, he appeals.
    Reversed, and petitioner ordered discharged.
    D. A. Puckett, of Houston, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to discharge the appellant under a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant was tried and convicted as a juvenile delinquent, and “committed to the care and custody of J. B. Oliphant, superintendent of Harris County School for Boys, Webster, Tex., for an indeterminate period of time not to exceed 5 years or beyond the time when he shall be 21 years of age.” He had been previously charged as a delinquent on account of another transaction, and had been paroled to his uncle. The uncle resided in the city of Houston, Harris county, Tex., as did the appellant’s mother. At the time of his arrest and for some months prior thereto, the appellant was an inmate of his mother’s home, and apparently the parole had terminated. When the complaint against him in the present case was filed, his uncle was given informal notice of it, appeared, and employed an attorney. Tlie mother, however, a widow, was given no notice, and knew nothing of the trial until after the conviction.

The judgment is attacked in this proceeding on the proposition that it is invalid, in that the court had no jurisdiction to try the accused without notice to his parent. This contention is supported by several decisions of this court. See Ex parte Burkhart, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 583, 253 S. W. 259; Ex parte Gordon, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 125, 232 S. W. 520; Ex parte Cain, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 509, 217 S. W. 386. The foregoing cases are based upon the construction of article 1087, C. C. P. 1925, formerly article 1200.

In these cases the conclusion is announced that a judgment requiring the incarceration of a child under the juvenile statutes, entered on a trial had without notice to the parent or guardian of the child, is void, in the sense that it is open to attack by way of habeas corpus.

The order refusing the relief prayed for is reversed, and the appellant ordered discharged. 
      ®3>Por other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes