Court Opinion

ID: 9681879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:00:19.186812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.298658
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Presiding Judge
(Concurring).
The writer confesses that this is the first time he remembers having seen a cause before us in such a condition- as the present one. Undoubtedly the trial court had the power to sentence the relator to spend one year in the county jail. This is exactly what he did. However, the court had no power to promise the relator’s parents, or to tell the sheriff, that at the end of ten days this man. was to be released with his one-year imprisonment still existing as the solemn judgment of the trial court. See Ex parte Hayden, 152 Tex. Cr. R. 517, 215 S.W. (2d) 620; Ex parte Sether, 151 Tex. Cr. R. 553, 209 S.W. (2d) 358.
The court should have committed the relator for the time mentioned in his judgment and for that time only. Regardless *246of what the judge might have told the sheriff, this man should not have been allowed to play fast and loose with the judgment of a court of record in this state.
Surely the secret agreement arrived at by parents of persons charged with an offense should not control the judgment of a court properly rendered. However, according to the Griffin case, supra, the time long since having passed in which the relator could be legally confined upon the judgment entered by the county court which sentenced him to one year in the county jail, he is entitled to his discharge. Under these circumstances, I see nothing else to do except to agree to his discharge at the present time since the trial court has found itself in such a peculiar position which is also presented to this court.
I therefore concur in the result expressed in the original opinion herein.