From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex Parte Shacklett

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 13, 1951
241 S.W.2d 849 (Tex. Crim. App. 1951)

Summary

In Ex parte Shacklett, 156 Tex.Crim. 217, 241 S.W.2d 849 (1951), it was stated: "Where the confinement is after conviction, it must be shown that any confinement would endanger the life of the prisoner before he is entitled to release."

Summary of this case from Ex Parte Baltimore

Opinion

No. 25281.

April 25, 1951. Rehearing Denied June 13, 1951.

Appeal from the County Court of Smith County, Ned Price, J.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.


Relator is confined in the Smith County jail following conviction in each of four cases charging a misdemeanor.

Relator presented to Honorable Ned Price, County Judge of Smith County, his application for habeas corpus alleging that he is afflicted with and suffering from a disease of such a nature that any species of confinement will endanger his life.

This appeal is from the judgment entered by Judge Price at the conclusion of the hearing, remanding relator to the custody of the sheriff until the fines and costs in said convictions are paid or satisfied.

The statement of facts fully supports the finding of the trial judge that relator failed to show that confinement would endanger his life.

Where the confinement is after conviction, it must be shown that any confinement would endanger the life of the prisoner before he is entitled to release. See Art. 137, C.C.P.; Thomas v. State, 40 Tex.Crim. R., 51 S.W. 242, 46 L.R.A. 454; Ex parte Tittle, 37 Tex.Crim. R., 40 S.W. 598.

The facts further support the trial court's finding that the treatment prescribed by relator's private physician, both medicines and diet, could be received by relator while confined in jail. Under such circumstances, relator is not entitled to release. See Ex parte Lynch, 150 Tex.Crim. R., 200 S.W.2d 828.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Ex Parte Shacklett

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Jun 13, 1951
241 S.W.2d 849 (Tex. Crim. App. 1951)

In Ex parte Shacklett, 156 Tex.Crim. 217, 241 S.W.2d 849 (1951), it was stated: "Where the confinement is after conviction, it must be shown that any confinement would endanger the life of the prisoner before he is entitled to release."

Summary of this case from Ex Parte Baltimore
Case details for

Ex Parte Shacklett

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte SHACKLETT

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: Jun 13, 1951

Citations

241 S.W.2d 849 (Tex. Crim. App. 1951)
156 Tex. Crim. 217

Citing Cases

Ex Parte Guess

" The trial court, in denying appellant relief, impliedly found that the evidence did not establish that a…

Ex Parte Baltimore

We find no testimony that the appellant is afflicted with a disease which renders a removal necessary for the…