*1 136 urges again error rehearing, appellant
In his motion con- overruling subsequent a in his motion the court’s action passed original opinion we points tinuance and out that in our upon overruling the motion in his contention that the court erred pass specifically because of the did not absence of witness but overruling por- that his contention that the court erred ground that tion of on the the motion which a continuance time and employ until such had been unable to counsel they prepare for trial. did not have sufficient time arrested original opinion, appellant was As was shown in our against him on on 1959 and indictment was returned September the date that 9. his arrest and Between the time of 3, 1959, appellant employed present em- counsel on December ployed separate attorneys, who, being employed, three after attorneys last of three withdrew as counsel in the case. The employed appellant’s withdrew on November On October first physical for continuance because was him, incapacity representing of counsel then pro- the same case was reset for trial the date on December Appellant arrest ceeded to trial. on bail from the date his including to and the time of his trial. equit- Appellant’s subsequent an motion for continuance was of the trial able motion and one addressed to the sound discretion court. Wiley R. 263 2d 568 and v. Gordy v. 160 Tex. 2d 126. Cr. 268 S.W. R. Richardson
Under the record no abuse of discretion is shown. v. 302 Tex. Cr. R. S.W. 2d 140. light appellant’s
We have reviewed the record in the they properly remain were contentions and convinced disposed opinion of in our submission. motion,
. rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court. Respondent J. R. Gooch,
Ann Relator 32,441. October *2 Schleyer tram, by Schleyer, and Bar Braunfels, J. H. New for relator. Barber, Marcos, respondent,
Wallace T. San and Leon Douglas, Attorney, Austin, State’s for the state.
DAVIDSON, Judge. application permission petition the for writ of bystand- to determine whether certain exception ers’ bills of of relator should be forwarded to this court part appeal. duly was set for submission and was submit- ted to this court.
At submission, the bar of the court at counsel for both the re- respondent agreed original bystanders’ lator and the exception bills of both and state should be forwarded agreement to this court. This will be carried out. appears granting Inasmuch as it that the reason for longer exists, to file the no
to file is denied.
WOODLEY, Judge, (Concurring). felony Relator was convicted of theft in the District court of County 27, 1960, gave Comal and on appeal. June notice of Transcript was forwarded this court which includes the Bystanders Bill Defendant’s No. 1. July 23, 1960, attorney trial filed motion the district “praying
court for a an order of the trial di- recting transcript containing supplemental the clerk to forward a Sentence, Bystanders Judgment, Bill No. the Court’s Bystanders State’s Bill No. of the Defendant’s Bystanders Bill 1.” No. herein, respondent trial set said at-
motion for to be held on and the district torney procured subpoenas sup- the issuance of for the affidavits porting Bystanders Defendant’s Bill 1 to at such hearing.
The matter was not heard on the date set but was set down August 3, 1960, witnesses were *3 summoned. 1960, judges Texas of two of of the Court applica- Appeals
Criminal the relators to prohibition, Judge tion for of “to cease writ directed Fuchs and any any taking holding and desist from further further action or hearings” guilty and in the cause in which relator had been found appealed pending by had this court on and action ordering Fuchs to be writ of cause, before this court on “to show by has, why if prohibition issued a writ of should not be * ** Court, you commanding this refrain from desist and proceedings further cause.” in the aforesaid authority prayed grant
This court
relief
is without
to
this
for,
and leave to file the
should have been denied
should now
reason.
be denied
authority
question
judge
There is no
that the trial
had
to
but
orig-
order
instruments which should have been included
transcript
supplemental transcript,
inal
sent
in a
and to order
original papers forwarded with the
to
Court for in-
this
spection.
Rep.
2d
Benton v.
S.W.
302; Singh
66 Tex. Cr. R.
146 S.
891.W.
authority
orders,
Having
it
that the trial
to make the
follows
authority
to determine whether
had
to conduct
granted.
125 Tex. Cr. R.
such orders should be
Fine v.
This court is without neces- thereof is corpus, the issuance the writ of habeas unless sary to re- jurisdiction. be to enforce its jurisdiction way of the Texas with the strained in no interfered Appeals. Court of Criminal Texas, V, provides
Art. the Constitution of Section of Ap- jurisdiction appellate Texas of Criminal of the Court peals jurisdiction of habeas court to issue writ and the of said jurisdiction writs, corpus. the Constitution As to to issue other may regulations pre- provides as be further “and under such necessary by may law, scribed issue such writs as be jurisdiction.” its own provision
The above of the has been construed Constitution authorizing Appeals as the Texas Court Criminal jurisdiction. writs of to enforce its grant and, power corpus under to issue writs of habeas regulations may by law, prescribed such as issue be may necessary jurisdiction, writs be to enforce its own would legis- seem implied to be an restraint jurisdiction lature to extend of the Texas Court Criminal Appeals, judge thereof, or a to include the of writs not issuance appeals deemed to enforce its over corpus. writs of habeas may, legislature attempted grant it
Be this as has not Appeals to the Texas Court of Criminal or to a thereof *4 to issue a writ of or only certiorari, other than mandamus and and these when judgment the court member thereof the same should be the court. Art. 53a C.C.P.
Ex Parte Jack Lewis 32,721.