Court Opinion

ID: 9681282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:47:19.957823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:33.047945
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
The ultimate question for determination in this case is the effect to be given Article 64, C. C. P., which reads as follows:
“When two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction of any criminal offense, the court in which an indictment or a complaint shall first be filed shall retain jurisdiction of such offense to the exclusion of all other courts.”
Relator would have us hold void any proceedings had in a court which subsequently acquired jurisdiction over the person 'of the accused by virtue of a charge for the same-offense.
We are not prepared to so hold. It has been the consistent holding of this court that, where the accused raised the question of the jurisdiction of his person by the court which had subsequently acquired jurisdiction of the offense, such a plea should have been sustained. Ringer v. State, 135 Tex. Cr. R. 573, 121 S. W. (2d) 364; and Leberman v. State, 139 Tex. Cr. R. 243, 139 S. W. (2d) 813.
It has also been the uniform holding of this court that, where the indictment in the court having first acquired jurisdiction had been dismissed, then the accused could not complain that the court which later acquired jurisdiction was not a proper tribunal to try him. Epps v. State, 130 Tex. Cr. R. 398, 94 S.W. (2d) 441; and Wright v. State, 126 Tex. Cr. R. 288, 70 S. W. (2d) 711.
*491It follows logically therefrom that the purpose of the statute is to prevent confusions and contentions between courts seeking to exercise jurisdiction and does not render proceedings in the second court void.
In Pearce v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 507, 98 S. W. 861, in discussing a case where a plea to the jurisdiction of the court was actually interposed, we said:
“We therefore believe that, Hartley county having acquired jurisdiction of the case and appellant asserting his right to be tried in that county, by reason of the prior indictment, his contention should have been sustained. But we do not hold that, if he had not interposed his plea, the judgment of Dallam County would, therefore, be illegal. The party under such circumstances must assert what he believes to be his legal rights in the premises, and he can waive venue in matters of this sort as well as he could in civil cases.”
Again, in Pittcock v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 163 S. W. 971, we said:
“* * * the defendant may set up by proper pleading the question of jurisdiction, or he may waive such right.”
Had the relator wished to invoke the provisions of Article 64, he should have done so before the tribunal which tried him. He may not raise this question for the first time on habeas corpus in this court.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.