Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

538 S.W.2d 134

Ex Parte Farris

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1976-07-07

Relies on Duckett v. State · Ex Parte Jewel

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1976-07-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2015

6 state decisions

3019761980199020002010decided

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 →

¶1*135 OPINION

GUPTON, Judge.

¶2 This is an application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A. C.C.P.

¶3 Petitioner’s sole contention is that he has been placed in double jeopardy by being convicted of the offense of murder with malice in Cause No. 28,774 and robbery by firearms in Cause No. 28,773, with both offenses arising out of the same transaction upon the same victim, Fred Wright.

¶4 The question of law presented in this cause is the same as was decided in the case of petitioner’s co-defendant, Michael Jewel. In Ex parte Jewel, 535 S.W.2d 362 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), this Court held that the robbery by firearms conviction must be vacated since petitioner therein had been previously convicted of the murder of Fred Wright, which occurred during the robbery, for the reason that the subsequent prosecution would have been barred by the carving doctrine as set out in Duckett v. State, 454 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).

¶5 The facts in the case at bar are exactly the same, except for the trial dates; therefore the same result must occur. The relief sought is granted. Petitioner’s conviction in Cause No. 28,733, for the offense of robbery by firearms in which he received a 99 year sentence, is hereby declared void and said indictment is dismissed.

¶6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

/538/sw2d/134 · .json · Public domain