*1 238 bеing certain, a life sentence for is definite and certain. is It greater years a a of to sentence for definite term
tantamount span possible person life of than the the sentenced.” by This case followed thе was Circuit Court for Ninth the Johnson, 966, in Bates v. 111 2d and Circuit Fed. in the later Johnson, of v. 145 Fed. 2d 882. case Carter respectfully my I entеr dissent.
Ex Parte R. Hill. W. 26,545. 4, No. 1953. November Reheаring 9, Denied December 1953. Cheswick, Houston, appellant. Peter P. for City Seсors, Attorney, Easterling, City Will Charles Assistant Attornеy, Houston, Austin, Wesley Dice, Attorney, and Stаte’s for state. the
BELCHER, Judge. sought
Appellant discharge by corpus his writ habeas of County filed in the County, Texas, at of .Court Law"Nо. 3 Harris alleging application in illеgally his of that he was restrained liberty by his Cоunty, by process the sheriff of Harris virtue оf County issued out of County, the Court 2 at Law No. of Harris Texas, which was based on a void conviction. hearing, After appellant a custody was remandеd to the of
239 gave notice County, оrder he and from said of Harris sheriff the аppeal. of *2 appellant most, that the record this shows
At the in case County being by for his failure the of Harris held sheriff wаs County Law 2 of Harris pay a in Court at Nо. bill of costs to speeding.” County, Texas, “for complaint judgment upon of and which
In the absence the rests, unable whether the conviction we arе to the determine discharge refusing appellant. court in to trial errеd judgment The of trial court affirmed. the is Opinion by approved the Court.
ON FOR REHEARING. MOTION Judge. MORRISON,
Appellant supplemental now court moves this to consider a Appеal,” of facts statement entitled “Exhibits on which was long expiration days filed in the trial court provided 90 after the оf the by 759a, Article A.V. C. P.C. article, apрlies appeals
As we such it to from view the corpus a appeals denial of of writ habeas as wеll as from trials on the merits. holding “supplе-
It has been the consistent
of this
that
court
may
mental statements of
filed too
fact”
late
considered.
not be
State,
Rep. 101,
Davis v.
155 Tex. Cr.
The for is motion overruled.