Case Name: Ex parte COLLINS
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-04-26
Citations: 185 S.W. 580
Docket Number: No. 4050
Parties: Ex parte COLLINS.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 185
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
Ex parte COLLINS.
(No. 4050.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 26, 1916.)
1. Courts &wkey;>62 — Teems — Constitutional ANn STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 583, providing that when any person charged with a misdemeanor in the county court shall desire to have his case disposed of upon his plea of guilty without the intervention of a jury, the county judge may hold a special session to dispose of such cause, is void, because in violation of Const, art. 5, § 29, declaring that the county court shall hold at least four terms for civil and criminal business annually, as provided by the Legislature, or by the commissioners’ court of the county, and such other terms as may be fixed by the commissioners' court.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts. Cent. Dig. §§ 207, 210; Dec. Dig. &wkey;62.]
2. Habeas Corpus <&wkey;>109 — Discharge prom Custody — Holding to Answer Indictment.
On habeas corpus to obtain relator’s discharge, where it appeared that he was convicted at a term of the county court not authorized by law, he was entitled to a discharge from the custody of the county road superintendent, but would be held by the sheriff under the indictment.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 97, 98; Dec. Dig. &wkey;ol09.J
Appeal from Shelby County Court; T. H. Postell, Judge.
Habeas corpus by Prank Collins. Writ granted discharging petitioner from custody, and the State appeals.
Reversed, and petitioner ordered delivered to the sheriff of Shelby county.
Sanders & Sanders, of Center, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Relator was indicted by the grand jury, charged with unlawfully carrying a pistol. He was arrested and entered a plea of guilty, and was fined $100 at a special term of the county court, called by the county judge.
He was placed on the public roads and puf to work, when he sued out a writ of ha-beas corpus asking that he be discharged, on the ground that he had been convicted at a term of court unauthorized by law. The county judge granted the writ, and upon hearing the cause it was proven that the commissioners' court of Shelby county, by order entered to that effect, had provided for only four terms of the county court annually, to convene on the first Monday in January, April, July, and October, and last only four weeks. That the January term had adjourned when the plea of guilty was .entered on March 14th, and the next regular term would not convene until the first Monday in April.' The county judge, acting under article 583, Code of Criminal Procedure 1911, called a special term and accepted the plea of guilty, and entered the judgment on March 14th. The contention is made that this article of the Code is unconstitutional and void, and therefore it gave the county judge no authority to call a special term of the county court. We do not care to enter into a discussion of the question again. In the case of Ex parte Cole, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 166, 101 S. W. 249, relator's contention was sustained, and that provision of the Code declared unconstitutional. Our Supreme Court has also held that, under the Constitution, the Legislature cannot empower the county judge to call special terms of the county court for civil and criminal business. Ex parte Reeves, 100 Tex. 617, 103 S. W. 478. Tims it is seen that both courts oí final resort in this state have heretofore held the act under which the county judge acted in calling a special term of his court unconstitutional. By reading section 29 of article 5 of the Constitution, it seems that if more than four terms of county court for civil or criminal business is held, it must be done under authority of the commissioners' court of the various counties.
However, while relator is entitled to be discharged from the custody of the county road superintendent, as the judgment under which he is held by that officer is void, yet he is not entitled to be discharged from custody he has been arrested under a valid indictment, and the county road superintendent will deliver him to the sheriff of Shelby county, to be held by him under and by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued on the indictment.
Relator is therefore relieved of confinement on the judgment, but will be held by the sheriff under the indictment.
The judgment is reversed, and relator ordered delivered to the sheriff of Shelby county, Texas.
«S^jEor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes