*1 the accused committed the offense be- State, doubt. Johnson v. yond a reasonable it (Tex.Cr.App.1976). While
537 S.W.2d prove which tends to
is a circumstance circumstance
guilt, necessary it is that this with other facts to show that combined guilty is of the crime. Johnson
the accused State, case,
v. there is noth- appellant’s presence
ing other than his involve-
scene which would tend to show stabbing.
ment in the
A on evi conviction circumstantial cannot be sustained if the circum
dence every do not exclude other reasona
stances hypothesis except guilt
ble that of the accused; proof amounting only to Young v.
strong suspicion is insufficient.
State, (Tex.Cr.App.1976). clearly
The evidence in this case is insuffi
cient to show that the stabbed the
deceased. grant-
Appellant’s rehearing motion for
ed. judgment and remanded reversed to enter
to the trial court with instructions judgment acquittal.
DOUGLAS, J., dissents for the reasons original
set out in the submis-
sion. LeBLANC, Jr., Relator,
Harold Leo
v. GIST,
Larry Judge District Criminal
Court, al., County et Jefferson
Respondents.
No. 62119. Texas, Appeals of Criminal
Court
En Banc. 9, 1980.
Jan.
Rehearing Sept. Denied 1980. *2 application the relator
his submits by parties of agreed statement facts the opinion and calls attention to our in LeBlanc, opinion The LeBlanc concerned a habeas corpus proceeding where the district appealed. On denied relief and LeBlanc where a appeal this court held that district court for has been transferred to V.T.C.A., Family trial as an adult under Code, 54.02, the subsequent the action of § discharging in the district court the after an trial because probable cause that the failed establish alleged the offenses juvenile had committed the adult criminal operated to terminate ef- juvenile and to proceedings against the to the fectively the remand This court diction of the court.1 later returned held that indictment the against the LeBlanc void. of agreed statement Hawthorn, Beaumont, and the for rela- Joseph C. the reflect in addition to facts further that tor. re- the facts above described that McGrath, and Ronald Atty. James S. Dist. on against turn of indictment LeBlanc the Beaumont, Sievert, Atty., Asst. Robert Dist. 1, the 1976, was filed in April petition Austin, Huttash, for Atty., the State’s Orange County alleging of Juvenile Court State. delinquent con- engaged in had committing forgery offense of duct 1976, 2, 12, on 1976. On March February Orange found County of the Juvenile Court OPINION allegations true and com- petition in ONION, Judge. Presiding Texas Youth Council. mitted LeBlanc of finding, the offenses writ At the original application is an of time This allegedly occur- seeking capital and murder prohibition the relator in- murder V, were within 5, County ring voke in Jefferson our under Article County Juvenile Constitution, writ knowledge to issue such a of Texas Code, 54.- V.T.C.A., Family law matters. Court. See 02(g). prohibit respondents, Relator seeks to also shows Gist, statement of facts Judge agreed the Crimi- Larry
Honorable of by this court County, following that reversal District Court of Jefferson remand of LeBlanc upon Honorable Attorney, the Criminal District McGrath, District Court Jefferson him for the 60th prosecuting James from Court, upon murder, murder, County, sitting as the Juvenile capital or any other of- Attorney, conduct- a motion of the District growing of the transaction occur- fense out (cid:127) on 1979 and ring support hearing May ed a February 1975. In custody, entry but refused to return Blanc from the 1. A district court docket sheet pend- the court cause cause reflected found discharged ing grand jury. proof based on the offered and Le- action issuing a writ of now to tion LeBlanc transferred the relator County for a criminal law Criminal District Court charges of as an adult on the identical trial matter. alleged to have and murder
capital murder
case, the relator has
26, 1976.
instant
February
or about
occurred on
*3
District
to the district
the same date the Criminal
again
On
been once
re-certified
assumed
and committed
Court
on criminal
as an adult
court
for trial
$50,000.00
jail in lieu of
bail.
the relator to
has assumed
district court
charges, and the
criminal
law
a
jurisdiction. We conclude
14, 1979,
offered
On June
State
When the State
is here involved.
examining trial
at a new
present evidence
exam
re-certification,
evidence at a new
attempted
relator
to offer
but
followed,
objected.
proceedings
trial,
objected,
These
obvi-
and these
ining
the relator
case,
habeas cor-
ously a test
as the earlier
appear
It would
proceedings
followed.
pus proceedings may well have been.
act which relator
this
from
record that
accomplished,
been
has not
prohibit
seeks to
proc
prohibition
A writ of
is that
withholding any
is
the district court
and
prevents
which a
infe
superior
ess
examining trial until
pending
action on the
courts,
officers,
tribunals,
persons
rior
or
in this case. We con
a decision is reached
usurping
exercising
from
or
jurisdiction over
court has
clude that
been vested.
they
with which
have not
presented.
the matter
Clawson,
ex rel. Vance v.
465 S.W.2d
State
(Tex.Cr.App.1971),
164
cert. den. 404 U.S.
Menefee,
822
parte
Ex
561 S.W.2d
182;
C.J.S.,
226,
73
92
30 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
an in-
it was held that
(Tex.Cr.App.1977),
prohibi
writ of
p.
Prohibition
9. The
§
juvenile after
against a
dictment returned
prevent
issues to
the commission of
tion
juvenile court is
transfer from
discretionary
undo,
or re
nullify,
future act and not to
which transfer
the district court to
void if
performed.
It will not
already
view an act
examining trial
to conduct an
made fails
granted
sought
pre
when the act
to be
of an indictment
to the return
already accomplished
vented is
but will be
Code,
V.T.C.A., Family
with
accordance
full, complete
such act is not a
when
54.02.2
§
ex
v.
accomplished act. State
rel. Vance
all
reviewed
The Menefee decision
Clawson, supra;
ex rel.
v.
State
Smith
dealing with
and former statutes
current
Blackwell,
(Tex.Cr.App.1973);
the Menefee stated: clear that in- Thus, any made Menefee “It is clear from these enactments that juve- a certified against dictment returned legislative the intent has been that a examining nile him according without an three followed before a step procedure be pointed up the trial was void. It further juvenile, years and later fifteen sixteen examining an trial was a second fact that older, an old or is tried in district court as the and afforded step process in the vital step pro- adult. were safeguards At each to juvenile opportunity certified another juvenile vided. court decides to If the against proceedings have the adult criminal jurisdiction hearing at de- retain the to the jurisdiction of him and the terminated juris- termine if the court should waive If was not juvenile court resumed. certify juvenile diction and the for crimi- Menefee, it well estab- by clear was made the proceedings, that ends LeBlanc, Le- by lished juvenile The regard to certification. Menefee, an ex- Blanc, was afforded unlike juvenile. If then will be handled as a to unable amining trial the State was but and there had been certification the dis- The court probable show cause. district court, following trict of action to await the discharged LeBlanc juvenile juvenile decides to remand the was remand grand jury. the There juvenile the will not tried then be holding the subse- juvenile the court. as an adult but will be void, quent in LeBlanc indictment this court juvenile the If the jurisdiction of court. said: juvenile, trial in dis- “ . faltered . . Here the State for action the trict is bound over dis- when court step the vital the second the not
grand jury grand and does examining trial. the indict, charged appellant at such the district court certified action terminated juvenile failure and We find such to indict appellant against jurisdiction proceedings of the case resumed ted him to the Texas Youth Council effectively remanded juvenile juvenile court. To do the said court had that at the time the examining alleged capital otherwise would render knowledge within its trial a sham because the meaningless February murder and murder put simply any could refuse appear that under here It would involved. evidence and then take be V.T.C.A., Code, 54.02(g),that since Family fore thus jury, depriving County re- right of the valuable of mean of LeBlanc on the for- tained provided ingful examining trial as knowledge within gery and had its charge V.T.C.A., Code, Family Legislature murder capital the said murder and Spencer, 54.02.” See Ex as prosecuted could not charges, LeBlanc above, holding view of our an “adult.” In this contention. we need not consider LeBlanc made clear a certified jurisdic- should have been remanded prayed as writ of tion of the court after the exam- granted. ining trial where no cause so It is Ordered. shown. After our decision LeBlanc that void, subsequent indictment was
diction was returned to the court. DOUGLAS, DAL- G. TOM DAVIS re-certified Le- LY, JJ., dissent. *5 Blanc to the district court. THE OVER- TO OPINION DISSENTING We conclude that once the district FOR THE MOTION RULING OF conducting WRITTEN WITHOUT REHEARING found no the first cause on certifi OPINION cation the cause was in effect remanded to thereafter that court DALLY, Judge. again certifying was barred from juve motion, Court, filed own The on its particular nile for trial as an adult on that further rehearing to set this matter for charge. case. disposition of the original consider its To hold otherwise would mean that each for Motion overrules the majority now time a certified is remanded to the opinion. written Rehearing without court after an trial in here as presented are issues same district court or grand the refusal Solete, presented were indict, court could con- dis- Opinion (Tex.Cr.App.1980; times, tinue to number of re-certify, any overruling of the Motion senting perhaps another hoping district filed written without Rehearing district another and another overruling of the day), and I dissent jury may react than the differently original for the in this case Rehearing Motion for many ones. If this how permissible, Solete, in Ex I did same reasons permitted? times would re-certification be many ju- How times must a once certified gauntlet? venile run the holdWe that once DOUGLAS, and W. C. G. DAVIS TOM juvenile’s has been a certified case remand- DAVIS, JJ., in this join dissent. there can ed to the re-certification.
Completely of the above independent
holding, we observe that even
return of the indictment discussed in Le- County
Blanc the court had delinquent LeBlanc a
declared charge of a forgery
the basis commit-