Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Ex Parte Rodriguez
Ex Parte Ruben M. Rodriguez
169 Tex. Crim. 367 · 334 S.W.2d 294
Decided April 13, 1960
Good LawGood law: 1286 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.
Summary
The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed an original application for habeas corpus filed by a jail inmate complaining that two judgments, each assessing a one-year jail term, were not properly cumulated. Applying its long-standing uniform practice, the Court held that it will not entertain, in the first instance, an original habeas application attacking the legality of confinement under a misdemeanor judgment; the applicant must first seek relief from the trial judge or other county or district judge of the county. Because the Court does not hear evidence, the application was dismissed without reaching the merits.
Holdings
- Whether an original application for habeas corpus attacking the legality of confinement under a misdemeanor judgment may be entertained by the Court of Criminal Appeals in the first instance.. No. Such an original application will not be entertained; the applicant must first resort to the judge of the trial court or other county court, county court at law, or district judge of the county for habeas relief. *295
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
3,234 opinions cite this case
Cited
Dunn, Christan Lee. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact.
Cited
Peyton, Jeffrey Bryan. cited for trial court as fact‑finder
Cited
Potter, William. cited to affirm that factual findings belong to the trial court
Cited
Silvas, Sonny D.. cites Ex parte Rodriguez for the trial court’s role in fact‑finding
Cited
Castillo, Kimberly. citing authority that trial courts handle factual determinations
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
The letter of the above named applicant was filed in this Court as an original application for habeas corpus.
Relator is confined in jail and complains that the two judgments, each assessing a one year jail term, were not properly cu-mulated.
This Court does not hear evidence.
In proceedings of this character it has been the uniform practice of this Court for many years to require that resort be first had to application for habeas corpus to the judge of the trial court or other county court, county court at law or district judge of the county for relief, and an application for habeas corpus originally filed in this Court attacking the legality of confinement under a misdemeanor judgment will not otherwise be entertained. 21 Tex. Jur. 445, Habeas Corpus, Sec. 34; Ex parte *295 Fitzpatrick, Tex.Cr.App., 320 S.W.2d 683; Ex parte Japan, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 482, 38 S.W. 43; Ex parte Lynn, 19 Tex.App. 120; art. 121, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
The application is dismissed.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- Drinkard v. Walker281 Ga. 211 (2006)
- Uchenna H. Okereke, Appellant v. United States of America; United States of America v. Uchenna H. Okereke, Appellant307 F.3d 117 (2002)
- Bobby Battle, Petitioner-Appellant v. U.S. Parole Commission, Respondents-Appellees834 F.2d 419 (1987)
- Lorenzo Montez, Petitioner-Appellant v. Mark McKinna, Respondent-Appellee208 F.3d 862 (2000)
- Wainwright v. Sykes433 U.S. 72 (1977)