*1 Ex Parte Gordon. 125 attack on case, there appeal instant Davis, disposed case, under the authority of the Parte But Rep., 218. all matters presented have been dis posed of in the Gordon to which reference is made. The relief is is remanded to the
custody of the Superintendent of the Training School at Gatesville,
Relator to custody. remanded Ex Maurice 5896.
No. 1920. October custody. Relator March 1921. remanded to Corpus—Delinquent 1.—Habeas Child—Bail. relator, by direct on habeas asked Where juvenile training committing is school bail to granted pending hearing Construed—Delinquent
2.—Same—Statutes Child. sought Where a ground as child from detention juvenile traininp incongrovs the and school on the that the law was unintelligible, Following the same is overruled. Ex Parte 87 Crim. Texas 370. by Jury—Representation by 3.—Same—Trial Counsel—Statutes Construed. juvenile right by jury, deny The not statute does of counsel or trial ground. the act invalid by Jury—Waiver—Felony—Misdemeanor. 4.—Same—Trial statute, juvenile Session, Thirty-fifth Legisla- ture, provides terms child shall not a a felony, jury in this in cases it is well-settled State that other than may be waived. Right—Custody —Same—Parental Children. parents While child have first to care cus tody, beyond parental yet where said child all some delinquent child, him or her fixed parents may parent with be interfered due notice Gain, guardian Following child. 86 Crim. Texas 509 n 6.—Same—Presumption—Notice—Practice Appeal—Suspended Sentence. showing record, the absence of In affirmative given, the afforded that the notification and, desired, for or with such counsel if hearing and also to upon.
7.—Same—Suspended Sentence-—Statutes Construed—Waiver. amended, 1197, as extend the While Articles waived, may sentence in' connection still *2 and where the record shows that no of for submission ruling sentence was correct, trial court is overcomes also statements motion the etc. brief, new trial to the effect that relator had From Bowie County. Original application for habeas ask- School, imprisonment Training which Juvenile is hereby denied. The opinion states the case. On question invalidity Crumpton, Sid Texas, Deaton, 243; 21 Ala Boaz, v.
the law: State State, 425; 200 W. bama, Miller v. S. General, Hawkins, for the State. Attorney Assistant Wallace in opinion. Cited cases Presiding Judge. This isan
DAVIDSON, corpus. writ of years age. and fourteen thirteen between boy Applicant He was theft. charged which The offense Turner, judge, district however, Judge before tried, years a term of five of a jury the intervention without He at filed Gatesville. reformatory school training
the juvenile to him decided adversely This was sentence. his plea and committed him to pronounced The judge the court. by granted ninety notice of appeal, He gave the reformatory. and bills of exception. file of facts statement in which days the reformatory. was then sent to He elapsed. time has import. several serious questions This presents sentence are of fact and plea the issues raised, ignoring the court’s action both questions, and the Other reformatory pending appeal. and the incarceration how, these deciding are suggested. are also Without matters awarded, and the granted, should be writ order, be before and that it returnable this court on we now which October, 1920. day the 6th $750, bail the sum of to be taken and ap- He will be in the terms of the law Coryell County the sheriff of proved by the Court of to abide Appeals, appearance writ against and order of said court. The will issued Superintendent Training School Juvenile the sheriff Coryell County upon served said superintendent. granted. LATTIMORE, Judge. an original application This is for habeas acted this court at a former upon by day which was partially corpus to consider bail until we should allowing the extent of the contentions made. merits of on the pass Superintendent release from detention Relator seeks at Gatesville for reasons. The pro various children, are incorrigible defining visions of the relator as so as that incongruous unintelligible assailed cannot understood or enforced. cannot correctly agree same held that merely with relator. While we have the State’s that the accused was was not sufficient incorrigible (Ex pleading W. Rep., 975), yet S. there are many acts of set forth statute with suffi certainty cient to enable same to be understood when charged against offender. It is also urged provisions of this law violate what is *3 relator, termed the fundamental right of the accused to a trial by and of heard jury, being by counsel. are unable to assent to this 1198, It in expressly stated Article proposition. Vernon’s C. C. P., which relates solely juveniles, any person interested may demand a Nowhere in said jury. statute is there denial of the counsel, of but on the contrary such is specially recognized in 1195 and Articles 1200 of said procedure. The fact that in some individual cases there be an apparent disregard these sacred rights, would not justify such attack the upon law itself. what a constitutes almost, a misdemeanor is a matter Just
if not entirely, statutory definition. Article 1197 as amended by 26, 43, Chapter p. Session the Thirty-fifth Legislature, in provides terms that a delinquency shall not a and it is well in settled this that in State cases other felonies, than 22, a P., Art jury may waived. C. C. and collated authorities.
It is urged by relator against this that parents have the first right to the care and of their children. This must be con ceded, and until by some fault of the parents, child, or vice of the the given child appears to be beyond all parental in some of the fixed as child, or her a delinquent such custody and control would not likely interfered with. It pro vided that notice must be given the parent or guardian of a child charged as a delinquent, and we Cain, hold imperative. 86 Texas Crim. Rep., S. W. In the absence of any affirmative showing to the in a record our presumption would be that the notification mentioned given, and that an op was portunity was thus afforded to appear for or with such delinquent counsel, and and if desired a we jury hearing. What have to the just said contention here applies made that relator was denied his application the to have sentence from the attached to jury. appears copy petition, It thereof his relator, in in January connection with two other made boys, in it also suspended written sentence application in when trial he was tried of the same said appears May year, court, before the and that no of sus- disposition question the in pended judgment. sentence As matter of feel inclined to think that opinion suspended we would sentence could no place juvenile procedure enforcing law where officers are such latitude in the large disposition manage- offenders, ment and it not to be that such officers thought resort; but would send them to institutions as a last except State both Article 1195 and amended Article make mention supra, sentence in suspended yield connection with we However, our to that see no law-making body. from the escape proposition that one who makes a written application it; suspended may also waive application case been made having January before trial no May, for a request jury appearing at the time and apparently no for the submission of sentence be- then we can no indulge presumption against correct- ness the action of trial in the motion for Statements briefs, new to the effect that had no him, denied a and that he jury, had one act for his desire to have passed up- made jury, though counsel in whose truth court has confidence, every would not suffice to overthrow the below, court toor overcome the settled presumptions favor correctness court’s action. is an original such cases we do not undertake to inquire *4 into the correctness of the trial court’s judgments matters of fact. Unless was admitted here the State that the relator was denied a jury or denied or that notice'was not given to' his parents guardian, or did not waive the issue of sus- pension of hearing of would mentioned, presume these matters in favor of the . judgment of the trial court. Finding no such attacked, error the law would warrant us in holding same invalid, for will bewill remanded to the custody of the Super- intendent of the
Relator remanded to custody.