Case ID: tex-crim_36/html/0482-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte Arthur Japan.
    
      No. 1488.
    
    
      Decided December 2nd, 1896.
    
    1. Habeas Corpus—Practice as to Granting by Court of Criminal Appeals.
    It was nev.er intended to constitute the Court of Criminal Appeals a nisi prius court for the purpose of issuing and trying indiscriminately all cases of habeas corpus. The application should be made to the proper County or District Judge, as the case may be, and this court is authorized to review such cases on appeal.
    2. Same.
    After judgment has been rendered in a criminal case, relief cannot be obtained by means of a writ of habeas corpus, unless the judgment is void.
    From the County of Bell.
    Original application for habeas corpus to be relieved from custody under a judgment of the City Court of Temple, imposing a fine of $25 for selling beer in a theater.
    
      W. P. Martin, for relator.
    
      Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
   DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is an original application to this court for a writ of habeas corpus. We have heretofore held that, “While the Constitution and statutes on this subject give this court jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus, yet we do not believe it was the intention of the lawmakers to constitute this tribunal a nisi prius court for the purpose of issuing and trying, indiscriminately, all cases of habeas corpus. The Constitution and laws of this State authorize us to review such cases on appeal.” See, Ex parte Lambert (Tex. Crim. App.), 36 S. W. Rep., 81. The application could have been made to the judge of the County Court of Bell County, if, indeed, the applicant could have resorted to the writ of habeas corpus at all. This is doubtful. See, Ex parte Ezell, 40 Texas, 451; Ex parte Dickerson, 30 Tex. Crim. App., 448; Ex parte Reynolds, 35 Tex. Crim. Rep., 437. It appears on the face of the application that the applicant had been convicted in the City Court of Temple of a misdemeanor, and, unless the judgment was absolutely void, he could not obtain relief by writ of habeas corpus. The application for writ of habeas corpus is refused.

Writ lieftcsed.

•Hurt, Presiding Judge, absent.