Case Name: Ex Parte Jim Collins, Jack Collins and Buster Dunn
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1931-04-29
Citations: 118 Tex. Crim. 146
Docket Number: No. 14390
Parties: Ex Parte Jim Collins, Jack Collins and Buster Dunn.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 146–148

Head Matter:
Ex Parte Jim Collins, Jack Collins and Buster Dunn.
No. 14390.
Delivered April 29, 1931.
Reinstated May 6, 1931.
Rehearing Denied May 20, 1931.
The opinion states the case.
John M. Mathis, Sr., and Horace Soule, both of Houston, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the district judge denying bail. As we 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 Texas Crim. Rep., 128; Ex parte Townsley, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 252; Ex parte Lozano, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 112; Ex parte Francis, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 398; Ex parte Walker, 117 Texas Crim. Rep., 128, 35 S. W. (2d) 1048. The record .fails to show a certification by the trial judge.
The appeal is dismissed.'
Dismissed.
ON MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL.
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
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 that reliance is had upon the fact that because no one was killed in committing the robbery, the infliction of the death penalty is improbable to a degree which would entitle the appellants to bail. There are recent precedents which would rebut such an assumption, notably Allen v. State (Texas Crim. 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.
Reinstated and judgment denying bail affirmed.