Case ID: sw_230/html/0147-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, P. J. HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte CROW.
    (No. 5786.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 2, 1920.
    Rehearing Granted April 6, 1921.)
    I. Habeas corpus &wkey;>l 13(10) — Appeal dismissed where there has been conviction for murder precluding bail.
    The writ of habeas corpus is only for the purpose of relieving from illegal restraint, and where defendant’s application was denied, and pending his appeal therefrom he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, so that bail cannot be granted, the appeal will be dismissed.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Habeas corpus <&wkey;l I3(M) — Appeal which has been dismissed may be reinstated on rehearing and determined upon reversal of conviction.
    Where relator seeking habeas corpus to procure bail appealed from denial of his application, and pending appeal he was convicted and sentenced for murder, and his appeal was dismissed it may be reinstated on rehearing pending his appeal from the conviction, and determined on the merits after reversal of the judgment of conviction.
    Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; W. S. Anderson, Judge.
    Tom Crow was placed in jail to await trial for murder, and he seeks habeas corpus to obtain bail, and his application being denied, he appeals.
    Appeal dismissed, and, on rehearing, judgment denying bail affirmed.
    See, also, 230 S. W. 148.
    Mauermann & Hair, Will Glover, and T. P. Hull, all of San Antonio, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

On a former day of the term this case was submitted. Since its submission appellant has been tried and convicted in the district court, as shown by the certificate of the clerk of that court. From that conviction he has prosecuted an appeal to this court. The reasons for the application for bail have ceased by reason of the conviction. Appellant’s case is now to be disposed of under the conviction and the questions arising on appeal under that conviction. It seems relator was put on trial only a few days after this application was presented to this court. This court would be powerless to grant bail under this application under the circumstances. The writ of habeas corpus is only used for the purpose of relieving from illegal restraint. Ex parte Ooupland, 26 Tex. 386; Ex parte Trader, 24 Tex. App. 393, 6 S. W. 533. Appellant, under a conviction "in the district court under certain circumstances, would be entitled to enter into a recognizance during term time, and failing to do this he might give bond in vacation. This rule, however, does not apply in all felony convictions. In this case the clerk’s certificate shows that he was convicted of murder, and awarded the death penalty. This would prevent his entering into a recognizance or bond in* the trial court, and this court, of course, would be powerless to grant bail pending the appeal.

For the reasons indicated we are of opinion the appeal should be dismissed, and it is, accordingly, so ordered.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

The original opinion dismissing the appeal discloses that before this court acted upon the same a judgment of conviction, with the death penalty was secured against the relator, and for that reason the appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, appellant filed a motion for rehearing requesting this court to reinstate the appeal and hold the matter until the main case, was disposed of against the relator, and that in the event it was reversed and remanded that this court then pass upon relator’sl appeal. from the judgment denying bail. The main case has been disposed of, and relator’s motion to have his appeal in this case reinstated is granted, and the matter will be considered as to whether the trial court, in remanding him without bail, committed error. Sufficient facts have been stated in the opinion in the main case to obviate the necessity of repeating the same here.

After an inspection of the entire record we are of opinion that the relator’s case does not come within the rules which would entitle him to bail, and the judgment of the lower court denying him bail is affirmed. 
      <&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes