From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Harris

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 30, 1973
495 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)

Summary

granting post-conviction habeas corpus relief because the applicant had been assessed an enhanced sentence even though the State had dismissed the enhancement paragraphs, thus constituting an unauthorized sentence

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. State

Opinion


495 S.W.2d 231 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973) Ex parte Oscar HARRIS, Jr. No. 46955. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. May 30, 1973

Oscar Harris, Jr., pro se.

Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS, Commissioner.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding under Article 11.07, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., and in accordance with the holding in Ex parte Young, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 824. The petitioner is confined under sentence in Cause No. 181695, of the 180th District Court of Harris County, on September 5, 1972, ordering his confinement for not less than five years nor more than fifteen years. The punishment assessed was upon conviction under an indictment charging appellant with burglary by the discharge of a firearm into a house. See Article 1393, Vernon's Ann.P.C. The record reflects that petitioner entered a plea of guilty after the enhancement portion of the indictment alleging two prior convictions for felonies less than capital had been dismissed on motion of the State.

An order denying relief without hearing on petitioner's writ was entered by the trial court on February 19, 1973.

Under Article 1397, V.A.P.C., one convicted of burglary 'shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than twelve years.' Thus, the punishment assessed petitioner was not authorized and the sentence is void. See Ex parte Jackson, Tex.Cr.App., 490 S.W.2d 586; Ex parte Ramsey, Tex.Cr.App., 472 S.W.2d 145; Ex parte Taylor, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 41.

The petitioner has not served the maximum punishment which could be imposed for the offense of burglary; therefore, he is not entitled to be discharged from confinement. Ex parte Reno, Tex.Cr.App., 477 S.W.2d 292; Ex parte Williams, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 812.

Petitioner is ordered released from confinement by the Department of Corrections and ordered delivered to the Sheriff of Harris County to answer the offense alleged in the indictment pending against him in Cause No. 181695.

Opinion approved by the Court.


Summaries of

In re Harris

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
May 30, 1973
495 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)

granting post-conviction habeas corpus relief because the applicant had been assessed an enhanced sentence even though the State had dismissed the enhancement paragraphs, thus constituting an unauthorized sentence

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. State

granting post-conviction habeas corpus relief because the applicant had been assessed an enhanced sentence even though the State had dismissed the enhancement paragraphs, thus constituting an unauthorized sentence

Summary of this case from Ex parte Clay
Case details for

In re Harris

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte Oscar HARRIS, Jr.

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Date published: May 30, 1973

Citations

495 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)

Citing Cases

Whirty v. Grimes

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.01 (Vernon 2005) ("[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the remedy to be…

Rodriguez v. State

The cases that support this proposition mostly involved assessment of a punishment that was simply…