Case Name: Ex Parte Elmo Wood
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1896-03-28
Citations: 36 Tex. Crim. 7
Docket Number: No. 873
Parties: Ex Parte Elmo Wood.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 7–13

Head Matter:
Ex Parte Elmo Wood.
No. 873.
Decided March 28th, 1896.
Habeas Corpus—Verdict—Judgment and Sentence—House of Correction and Reformatory.
On a trial for burglary, where the verdict found the defendant was under 16 years of age, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for a term of two years, but failed to specify the place of confinement; that is, whether in the penitentiary or in the house of correction and reformatory; and the judgment and sentence of the court ordered his imprisonment in the house of correction and reformatory; whereupon defendant applied for a writ of habeas corpus, upon the ground that the judgment and sentence were absolutely void, the verdict not having designated such imprisonment, as is required by the proviso to Art. 1145, Code Crim. Proc. [Act of April 2nd, 1889]. Held: That the court had jurisdiction to render such judgment and sentence on a verdict silent as to the place of imprisonment, and that applicant was not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus.
Henderson, Judge, while dissenting as to the proper construction and effect to be given to the proviso in Art. 1145, Code Crim. Proc., with regard to the verdict. Holds: That the judgment not being absolutely void, applicant was not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus.
This proceeding was an original application for a writ of habeas corpus, to be discharged from imprisonment in the house of correction and reformatory, in the County of Coryell.
The opinion states the case fully.
[No briefs on file with the record.]
Mann Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HURT, Presiding Judge.
The relator was placed upon trial in the District Court of Wilbarger County, on an indictment charging him with burglary. To the charge he pleaded guilty. The jury returned their verdict, punishing him by imprisonment for the term of two years. The verdict finds that the defendant was under 10 years of age. It did not state whether the relator should be sent to the house of correction and reformatory, or the penitentiary, as required by the Act of April 2nd, 1889 (New Code Crim. Proc., Art. 1145). The court, however, entered up the judgment, in form, sending him to the reformatory. Believing this judgment to be absolutely void, the appellant seeks, by habeas corpus, to be discharged from imprisonment at the reformatory.
My Brother, Henderson, believes the proviso contained in the last act to be void, without any force or effect whatever. I do not take this view of the question. The first act, which was passed'March 29th, 1887, upon such a verdict as was rendered in this case, required the judgment and sentence to send the convict to the reformatory. This was imperative, no discretion being left with the jury or the court. Ex perience, however, taught the legislature that incorrigible criminals were sent to the reformatory, which was against the very object of the law creating such an institution, and hence.the proviso contained in the last act, which reads: "Providing the jury convicting shall say in their verdict whether the convict shall be sent to the reformatory or the penitentiary." If the jury should render a verdict that the prisoner was not over 16 years of age, and in the verdict the jury should say he should be sent to the penitentiary for any term, naming it, not exceeding five years, we believe such verdict would be legal, and the judgment and the sentence should follow the same. It is contended, however, by relator, that the judgment and sentence are void, because the jury failed to say where he should be sent. The court had jurisdiction of the person and the subject-matter. The court had a legal right to pronounce the judgment rendered in this case, because the law provides, in certain circumstances, such a judgment should be rendered. The punishment imposed was in accordance with the law. It was that prescribed for this offense. It was not greater than the law permitted. It is true that the jury may have sent him to the penitentiary; but we cannot say, upon a silent verdict, that the punishment imposed was without jurisdiction in the court. This is not a case in 'which a different punishment from that inflicted by the jury has been imposed, or a greater punishment, or an illegal punishment. It is a case in which the punishment has been inflicted on a verdict simply failing to name the place where the relator should be confined. The punishment inflicted is the mildest known to law. We have reference to the place, and not to the length of the time of punishment. Under the above case, can a convict be discharged on a writ of habeas corpus? We answer, that he cannot. We have not the time to elaborate this proposition, believing that nothing can be added to the opinions in the cases of State v. Sloan, 65 Wis., 647; 27 N. W. Rep., 616; Turney v. Barr, 75 Iowa, 758; 38 N. W. Rep., 550; Ex parte Gibson, 31 Cal., 619. Sloan's case must be considered in connection with Hogan v. State, 30 Wis., 439. The writ of habeas corpus is refused.
Habeas Corpus Refused.
Davidson, Judge, concurs.