Case Name: Ex parte PARVIN
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-11-01
Citations: 140 S.W. 439
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte PARVIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 140
Pages: 439–440

Head Matter:
Ex parte PARVIN.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 1, 1911.)
Habeas Corpus (§ 113 )—Appeal—Admis-sion to Bail—Dismissal op Appeal.
Where a party sues out a habeas corpus, and is remanded and allowed to enter into a recognizance on appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals has no jurisdiction, and the appeal will be dismissed.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 102-115; Dec. Dig. § 113. }
Appeal from District Court, Callahan County; Thomas L. Blanton, Judge.
George Parvin sued out a writ of habeas corpus, asking to be released from an alleged illegal arrest. Relator remanded, and a recognizance on appeal entered into.
Appeal dismissed, on motion by the State.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Relator sued out a writ of habeas corpus before Hon. Thomas L. Blan-ton, judge of the district court of Callahan county, asking to be released from what he charged to be an illegal arrest. Upon hearing the application, relator was remanded to the custody of the sheriff, when he gave notice of appeal to this court. The judge fixed his recognizance on appeal in the sum of $1,000, which recognizance relator entered into, with sureties.
The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, on the ground that, pending appeal in habeas cor pus cases, the relator must remain in custody, and, if he is not in custody, this court •will not entertain the appeal. This question has been frequently passed on by this court. See Ex parte Branch, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 384, 37 S. W. 421; Ex parte Talbutt, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 12, 44 S. W. 832; Ex parte Snyder, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 120, 44 S. W. 1108; Ex parte Cole, 14 Tex. App. 579. It is expressly held in the case of Ex parte Talbutt, supra, that relator cannot enter into a recognizance, and, if he does do so, the jurisdiction of this court does not attach.
The motion is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.