Case ID: sw_225/html/0176-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte DAVIS.
    (No. 6035.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 10, 1920.)
    1. Habeas corpus <i&wkey;l 13(9) — Order remanding relator held not reviewable in view of record.
    Where there were two applications for a writ of habeas corpus based on different facts, and a general order was issued remanding relator to the custody of the sheriff, and it is not shown upon which application the order was made, nor whether any evidence was offered, the trial court’s ruling will not be reviewed.
    2. Habeas corpus <&wkey;l 13(9) — Showing that relator was carried into another state after appeal held not reviewable in view of record.
    Under such record, it was unnecessary to review a separate paper filed in the appellate court showing that, after notice of appeal was given, the relator had been carried into another state.
    3. Habeas corpus <&wkey;l 13(2)— After notice of appeal, appellate court has jurisdiction.
    When notice of appeal in a habeas corpus case was entered, the Court of Criminal Appeals obtained jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person of the relator for disposition of his appeal.
    
      4.Habeas corpus &wkey;>113(13) — Appellate court has power to make necessary orders.
    If there is anything in the record requiring the Court of Criminal Appeals in a habeas corpus case to reverse the action of the trial court, the appellate court could enter such judgment or make such orders as necessary to enforce its jurisdiction and to compel enforcement of its orders.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; Geo. E. Hosey, Judge.
    Applications for writ of habeas corpus on the relation of Walter Davis. Order- remanding relator to custody of the sheriff, and relator appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

There seems to have been two applications for a writ of hab-eas corpus; the first based upon the fact that the trial was delayed, and he was kept in jail without a trial, and that he desired a hearing, so that bond might be fixed, or that he might be tried. While this matter was pending, there was a complaint filed, charging him with being a fugitive from justice from another state. An additional writ for hab-eas corpus was applied for with reference to that matter. Upon the hearing the court remanded relator to the custody of the sheriff, and upon which application this order was made is not shown. The order is a general one, entered by the court, remanding him to the custody of the sheriff of Tarrant county. There seems to have been no evidence offered in support of any of the matters; at least, if there was, it is not shown by the record. In this condition of the record there is nothing tangible upon Which this court could base an opinion, or review the trial court ruling. Had the record contained the matters about which the complaint is made, so this court could review them, we could have entered such order as might be appropriate and proper.

There has been filed a separate paper in this court, showing that after notice of appeal was given the relator has been carried to the state of Oklahoma. It is unnecessary, we think, to review that question in the attitude of the record. Of course, when notice of appeal was entered, this court obtained jurisdiction, not only of the subject-matter, but of the person of the relator, for disposition of his appeal.

If there was anything in the record requiring this court to reverse the action of the trial court, this court would not be powerless to enter such judgment or make such orders as would be necessary to enforce its jurisdiction and to compel the enforcement of such orders as it might enter; but in the attitude the matter is presented we are of opinion there is nothing upon which the court could act, and it would be useless to undertake to do so as we view the record.

As the matter is presented, we are of opinion the judgment should be affirmed; and it is accordingly so ordered. 
      <S=»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUM.BER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes