Case Name: Ex Parte Woodrow Seals
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1952-12-03
Citations: 158 Tex. Crim. 329
Docket Number: No. 26,098
Parties: Ex Parte Woodrow Seals.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 158
Pages: 329–333

Head Matter:
Ex Parte Woodrow Seals.
No. 26,098.
December 3, 1952.
State’s Motion for Rehearing Denied February 11, 1953.
State’s Second Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) March 4. 1953.
E. P. Dee, Houston,' for relator.
Will Sears, City Attorney, Chas. M. Rawson and Chas. Easter-ling, Assistants City Attorney, all of Houston, and George P. Blackburn, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Judge.
The relator was convicted in the corporation court of the city of Houston under a complaint charging a primary offense of speeding; and, in order to enhance the punishment, a prior conviction of speeding was plead.
Relator appealed this conviction to the county court at law, where he was again convicted and a capias pro fine issued. It is from confinement by virtue of such capias that relator applied to the criminal district court of Harris County for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was granted; a hearing was had; the court remanded relator to custody; and he appealed.
The ordinance under which relator was charged provides a maximum penalty Tor a first conviction of $200.00.
Article 61, P. C., reads as follows:
"If it be shown on the trial of a misdemeanor that the defendant has been once before convicted of the same offense, he shall on a second conviction receive double the punishment prescribed for such offense in ordinary cases, and upon a third or any subsequent conviction for the same offense, the.-punishment shall be increased so as not to exceed four times the penalty in ordinary cases." -
It will thus be seen that the maximum.penalty for the offense charged in the complaint under which relator was prosecuted, by operation of Article 61, P. C., was $400.00.
The jurisdiction of a corporation court is limited to cases where the maximum fine that may be assessed does not exceed $200.00. Article 62, C. C. P.
Since the corporation court did not have jurisdiction to try the offense charged, a judgment of conviction thereunder is void, and the relief prayed for should be granted.
The judgment remanding relator is reversed, and the relátor is ordered discharged.