Case Name: Ex parte RICHIE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-05-12
Citations: 177 S.W. 85
Docket Number: No. 3509
Parties: Ex parte RICHIE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 177
Pages: 85–85

Head Matter:
Ex parte RICHIE.
(No. 3509.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 12, 1915.
Rehearing Denied June 9, 1915.)
1. Habeas Corpus ®=»113 — Appeal — Discharge from Custody Pending Appeal.
In a habeas corpus proceeding by a prisoner who was temporarily released and subsequently rearrested, he could not be released from custody pending an appeal from a judgment remanding him to custody by entering into a recognizance or appeal bond.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 102-115; Dec. Dig. <S^113.]
2. Habeas Corpus <§=^113 — Appeal—Statement of Facts — Time for Filing.
On appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding, a statement of facts filed over 100 days after the adjournment of court could not be considered, there being no showing that the failure to get the statement of facts was not due to the relator’s fault.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 102-115; Dec. Dig. <@=3 113.]
Appeal from District Court, Hunt County; Wm. Pierson, Judge.
Habeas corpus proceeding by R. R. Richie. From a judgment remanding the relator to custody, he appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
T. B. Ridgell, of Rockwall, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.-
Relator was convicted in the county court, his punishment being assessed at a fine of ?100 and imprisonment in the county jail for 30 days. This occurred in February, 1914. Subsequently he was placed in jail and served part of his imprisonment, and was then permitted to go home for the purpose of attending to his crop for fear of loss of his crop, and also on account of sickness in his family. Later the sheriff arrested him, and placed relator in jail to finish out the 30 days' imprisonment. A writ of habeas corpus was resorted to, and he was remanded to custody. This judgment was rendered in the district court on November 23, 1914. Relator gave an appeal bond pending his appeal to this court, and on the appeal bond supposedly was discharged from custody pending appeal.
In habeas corpus cases similar to this the relator cannot be released from custody pending his appeal by entering into a recognizance or appeal bond. Snyder v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 120; Talbutt v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 12.
Again, if the jurisdiction of this court had attached, still we could not revise the action of the court intelligently because the statement of facts was not filed until something over 100 days after adjournment of court. This comes too late. There is no showing made that the failure to get the statement of facts arose from no fault of the relator. The court adjourned on the 28th of November, 1914, and the statement of facts was approved and filed on Blarch 18, 1915. In case we could entertain jurisdiction of the appeal, still we could not revise the action of the trial court for want of statement of facts.
The appeal will therefore be dismissed.