Case ID: sw2d_7/html/0091-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte JANUARY.
    (No. 11921.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 30, 1928.
    Habeas corpus <⅜»55 — Where application In habeas corpus proceeding did not have attached writ, order, or process restraining applicant of liberty, court properly remanded applicant.
    Where application in habeas corpus proceeding stated applicant was illegally confined and restrained of his liberty “by virtue of a certain writ, order, or process, copy of which is hereto annexed,” but such writ, order or process was not attached, application brought nothing for review before either trial court or appellate court, and trial court properly entered judgment remanding applicant.
    Appeal from District Court, Van Zandt County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
    Habeas corpus proceeding by Hugh January. From a judgment remanding applicant to the custody of the sheriff, applicant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. M. Lively, of Canton, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Van Zandt county remanding applicant to the custody of the sheriff upon a hearing of his habeas corpus application for discharge.

Applicant filed in the district court of said county on February 13, 1928, an application stating that he was illegally confined and restrained of his liberty “by virtue of a certain writ, order, or process, copy of which is hereto annexed.” If any writ, order, or process was attached to the application, it certainly does not accompany same in this transcript. We have no means of finding out from this record what applicant based his application upon; or what ground he advances for relief from confinement. Such application brings nothing for review before this court, and brought nothing for review before the trial court, who correctly entered judgment remanding applicant.

We might say, parenthetically, that the statute making the taking of a chicken or a turkey a felony per se has been held unconstitutional by this court, and upon an application for discharge under a Judgment and sentence rendered upon the trial of. one for such offense, if properly before the court, the discharge should be ordered; but we find nothing in this record upon which the trial court could have acted, nor can we.

The judgment remanding applicant is affirmed. 
      <§x»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes