Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

445 S.W.2d 729

Ex parte Ferrell

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided October 22, 1969

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1969-10-22

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We hold that the constitutional guarantee against multiple punishments for the same offense absolutely requires that punishment already exacted must be fully ‘credited’13 in imposing sentence upon a new conviction for the same offense. If, upon a new trial, the defendant is acquitted, there is no way the years be spent in prison can be returned to him. But if he is reconvicted, those years can and must be returned — by subtracting them from whatever new sentence is imposed.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Smotherman v. State

Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Ex Parte Ferrell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1969-10-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 1983

9 state decisions

60196919701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

¶2This is another application for a writ of Habeas Corpus from this relator. His last case is reported as Ex parte Ferrell, Tex. Cr.App., 406 S.W.2d 440, in which the writer for the Court denied the relief which relator sought saying:

“We are without authority to order that relator be given credit upon his sentence for the time he was confined under a void sentence.”

¶3Since the rendition of such opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656(4), which is here controlling. The Court there stated the following:

“We think it is clear that this basic constitutional guarantee is violated when punishment already exacted for an offense is not fully ‘credited’ in imposing sentence upon a new conviction for the same offense.”

¶4Since relator has now shown that he has credit for more than ten years confinement, he is now, by virtue of the case cited, entitled to release. He is therefore ordered released.

/445/sw2d/729 · .json · Public domain