TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Washburn

Ex Parte Harry L. WASHBURN

Ex Parte Washburn, 459 S.W.2d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 10, 1970
Docket
No. 43577
Judges
Morrison
Citations
459 S.W.2d 6371970 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1546

Opinion — Morrison

OPINION MORRISON, Judge.

This is a second application for a writ of habeas corpus from the petitioner. His last case is reported as Ex Parte Washburn, Tex.Cr.App., 383 S.W.2d 592 , and the issues in that writ are unrelated to those in the present application.

Petitioner seeks to have this Court order that he be granted credit for time spent in jail while he was held without bond from the date of his arrest through his first trial; the appeal, which resulted in a reversal; his second trial, and the appeal of that case, in which the conviction was affirmed.

The time which petitioner spent in jail between his arrest on January 29, 1955 and January 2, 1959, the date on which he actually began to serve his sentence, can be divided into four periods.

1. The period of time between petitioner’s arrest on January 29, 1955, and his original sentencing on January 16, 1956.

2. The period of time between the original sentence on January 16, 1956, and the date the mandate issued from this Court reversing said conviction and sentence on March 29, 1957.

1

3. The period of time between the above mandate on March 29, 1957, and the date that petitioner was sentenced following a new trial, September 6, 1957.

4. The period of time between the sentence on September 6, 1957, and the date the mandate issued affirming this conviction and sentence on January 2, 1959.

2

Petitioner applied to the trial court, in which he was finally sentenced, for credit on his sentence from the date of arrest. The habeas court granted him credit for periods two through four, but did not grant credit for period one. Petitioner requests that this Court affirm the action of the habeas court and order that he also be given credit for period one.

Petitioner was constitutionally entitled to credit for periods two and four. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 5.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 . See also Ex Parte Griffith, Tex.Cr.App., 457 S.W.2d 60 .

It was discretionary with the judges who sentenced petitioner at the time of his original conviction and at the time of *639 his second conviction to grant him credit for the time he had spent in jail prior to trial, under Article 42.03, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. Neither judge gave such credit, thereby exercising their discretion. The habeas judge is without authority to grant petitioner credit for period three. He did not err in refusing to grant petitioner credit for period one, but did err in granting him credit for period three, Gremillion v. Henderson, 425 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir., 1970).

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Department of Corrections.

It is so ordered.

1

.Washburn v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 448 , 299 S.W.2d 706 .

2

. Washburn v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 125 , 318 S.W.2d 627 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1971: 21972: 11973: 21974: 11976: 21977: 119712026peak 1971 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ex Parte Freeman486 S.W.2d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)
  2. Vessels v. State467 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)
  3. State ex rel. Vance v. Clawson465 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)
  4. Ex Parte Esquivel531 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)
  5. Ex Parte Bates538 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)
  6. Ex Parte Allen548 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)

Most recent

  1. Ex Parte Allen548 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)
  2. Ex Parte Bates538 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)
  3. Ex Parte Esquivel531 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)
  4. Ex Parte Bennett508 S.W.2d 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)
  5. Ex parte McWilliams502 S.W.2d 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)
  6. Gray v. State493 S.W.2d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) 6,465
Washburn v. State, 299 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956) 54
Washburn v. State, 318 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 1958) 60
Washburn v. State, 167 Tex. Crim. 125 (1958) 41
Gremillion v. C. Murray Henderson, 425 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1970) 34
Ex Parte Griffith, 457 S.W.2d 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) 25
Ex Parte Washburn, 383 S.W.2d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list