Case Name: Ex parte COLLINS et al.
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1931-04-29
Citations: 38 S.W.2d 789
Docket Number: No. 14390
Parties: Ex parte COLLINS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 38
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
Ex parte COLLINS et al.
No. 14390.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 29, 1931.
Appeal Reinstated May 6, 1931.
Rehearing Denied May 20, 1931.
John M. Mathis, Sr., and Horace Soule, both of Houston, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
This is an appeal from an order of the district judge denying bail. As understood from the record as it comes here, the trial was had in vacation. When the trial, is had in vacation, the statute demands that the proceedings bear the certificate of the judge. See article 857, C. C. P.; also Ex parte Young, 87 Tex. Cr. R. .128, 219 S. W. 1102; Ex parte Townsley, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 252, 220 S. W. 1092; Ex parte Lozano, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 112, 225 S. W. 59; Ex parte Francis, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 398, 239 S. W. 957; Ex parte Walker (Tex. Cr. App.) 35 S. W.(2d) 1048. The record fails to show a certification by the trial judge.
The appeal is dismissed.
On Motion to Reinstate Appeal.
The record having been duly certified by the trial judge, the appeal is reinstated.
The appellants were charged by indictment with robbery with firearms. On a habeas corpus hearing they were denied bail. This is an appeal from that judgment.
Proof of the commission of the robbery and the identity of the accused is evident. It is likewise evident that they used firearms as a bludgeon and in connection with their, threats to kill the inmates of the bank in which the robbery took place to compel their submission to the wills of the accused.
No brief is before us, and we are not therefore made aware of the contention of counsel for the appellants. However, we assume tliat reliance is had upon the fact that, because no one was killed in committing the robbery, the infliction of the death penalty is improb able to a degree which would entitle the appellants to bail. There are recent precedents which would rebut such an assumption, notably Allen v. State (Tes. Or. App.) 21 S. W.(2d) 527, in which, under similar circumstances, the death penalty was assessed in the trial court and affirmed by this court.
The judgment denying bail is affirmed.