TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Parker

Ex Parte R.F. Parker.

Ex Parte Parker, 188 S.W.2d 983 (Tex. Crim. App. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 18, 1916
Docket
No. 4267.
Judges
Prehdergast
Citations
188 S.W.2d 983188 S.W. 98380 Tex. Crim. 1141916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 260
Headnotes
Murder—Bail—Practice on Appeal—Statement of Facts. In the absence of a statement of facts, an appeal to this court from an order of the lower court denying relator hail, can not be considered; however, if the alleged statement of facts were consider ed, there was no reversible error. It is the rule of this court, in this character of case, not to state or discuss the testimony.
Summary
The opinion states the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Prehdergast

PREHDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was held in custody by the sheriff under a proper warrant charging him with murder. An examining trial was held by the justice of the peace a few days after appellant killed deceased, and the justice after hearing all the testimony, remanded him without bail. Thereupon, he sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the district judge of the district, who also heard all the testimony, and he denied him bail and remanded him. From this action of the district judge this appeal is prosecuted.

There is really no statement of facts in the record. What is here has been agreed to by the attorneys on both sides, but has in no way been approved by the trial judge. Strictly, therefore, it can not be considered. .(Sec. 596, p. 304, 1 Branch’s Ann. P. C.) However, before we discovered this, we had carefully read this statement, and even after discovering it we have again read and studied it. We have reached the conclusion that even if the statement had been approved by the trial judge we would not be justified in reversing the judgment of the District Court denying him bail. As is our rule, we do not state or discuss the testimony of appeals in this character of case.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1917: 11933: 119172026peak 1917 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Deeb v. Gandy148 So. 540 (Fla. 1933)
  2. Parker v. State196 S.W. 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 1917)

Most recent

  1. Deeb v. Gandy148 So. 540 (Fla. 1933)
  2. Parker v. State196 S.W. 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 1917)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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