Case ID: tex-crim_34/html/0116-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HURT, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte Quesada, alias Glanton.
    
      No. 89.
    
    
      Decided February 6.
    
    1. Mandamus—Jurisdiction—Insanity.—On an application for writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to try the question of insanity, after conviction and judgment for robbery, Neld, that this court has no jurisdiction to issue the writ for that purpose.
    2. Same—Writ Issued Only, When.—The Court of Criminal Appeals can issue the writ of mandamus only for the purpose of enforcing its own jurisdiction. Const., art. 5, sec. 5.
    Application for mandamus to District Court of Bexar.
    The following is the petition submitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals for mandamus:
    
      “To the Honorable Presiding Judge and Associate Justices of the Court of Criminal Appeals for the State of Texas:
    
    ‘‘ Comes now A. W. Seeligson, informant and demandant, attorney for John Quesada, alias John Clanton, and respectfully shows to the court, that heretofore, to wit, on the 20th day of June, 1891, the said John Quesada, alias John Clanton, was, in a case entitled ‘ The State of Texas v. John Quesada, alias John Clanton/ tried in the District Court in and for the Thirty-seventh Judicial District of the State of Texas, and convicted of the offense of robbery; that later, the mother of said defendant appeared, and on the 26th day of June, 1891, filed under oath a suggestion of the insanity of said defendant; that a hearing upon said suggestion of insanity, though insisted upon, was not then and never has since been accorded; that said defendant is of unsound mind; that the said suggestion is yet, in contemplation of law, pending in said District Court; that your informant and demand-ant can not get the benefit of appeal till the suggestion shall have been heard and determined; that defendant is without other legal remedy, and the recitations herein contained fully appear from an inspection of the certified transcript of the record in the case mentioned, which is hereto attached, marked ‘Exhibit A/ and made a part of this petition. Wherefore your informant and demandant, attorney for John Quesada, alias John Clanton, prays that a writ of mandamus do issue from this honorable court, commanding Honorable George H. Hoonan, judge of the District Court for the Thirty-seventh Judicial District, to take cognizance thereof, and proceed to hear and determine the issue made and presented by said suggestion of insanity, and for all proper relief. [Signed] “A. W. Seeligson,
    “Attorney for John Quesada, alias John Clanton.”
    Ho briefs on file.
   HURT, Presiding Judge.

Application for a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to try the question of insanity after conviction and judgment for robbery. This court has no jurisdiction to issue the writ for that purpose. This court can issue the writ only for the purpose of enforcing its own jurisdiction. Const., art. 5, sec. 5. If the question of insanity had been tried under the provisions of the code, and the appellant had been found sane against the great overwhelming preponderance of the testimony, and if every rule of evidence had been violated in the trial, no appeal would lie to this court; and if we have no appellate jurisdiction, the writ in this cause would not be to enforce the jurisdiction of this court.

The application for writ of mandamus is denied. See Darnell v. The State, 24 Texas Criminal Appeals, 6.

Mandamus denied.

Judges all present and concurring.