Ex Parte Crosley, 548 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Ex Parte Crosley, 548 S.W.2d 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
55 citation events (33 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The State of Texas v. Gabriela Quiroz MacEdo, No. 08-20-00168-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso Dec. 30, 2024)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 410 Collateral consequences of misdemeanor convictions entitling to relief12 citing casesEven though the applicant may have been discharged from confinement, collateral legal consequences of his [misdemeanor] conviction may entitle him to relief.1 citing court put it this way · 11 listed here
  • The State of Texas v. Gabriela Quiroz MacEdo, No. 08-20-00168-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso Dec. 30, 2024).published
    (Even though the applicant may have been discharged from confinement, collateral legal consequences of his [misdemeanor] conviction may entitle him to relief.)
  • Ex Parte Badih Ahmad Ahmad, No. 14-16-00542-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 25, 2017).unpublished
    Ex parte Crosley, 548 S.W.2d 409, 410 (Tex. Crim.
  • Ex Parte Aftab Ali, 368 S.W.3d 827 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012).published 2 cites
    App. 1987) (op. on reh’g); Ex parte Crosley, 548 S.W.2d 409, 410 (Tex. Crim.
  • Ex Parte Daniel Rodriguez, No. 14-10-00529-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 6, 2011).unpublished
    Ex parte Crosley , 548 S.W.2d 409, 410 (Tex. Crim.
  • Ex Parte George Vasquez, No. 14-08-01066-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 2, 2009).unpublished
    Ex parte Crosley , 548 S.W.2d 409, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); see State v. Collazo , 264 S.W.3d 121, 126 (Tex. App. C Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref = d) (noting that A the fact that [an applicant] is not physically confined does not…
  • Ex Parte Jeffrey Holliday Karlson, No. 02-08-00366-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 19, 2009).published
    Ex parte Crosley, 548 S.W.2d 409, 410 (Tex. Crim.
  • Ex Parte Jeffrey Holliday Karlson, No. 02-08-00371-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 19, 2009).published
    Ex parte Crosley , 548 S.W.2d 409, 410 (Tex. Crim.
  • Ex Parte Karlson, 282 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009).published
    Ex parte Crosley, 548 S.W.2d 409, 410 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); see State v. Collazo, 264 S.W.3d 121, 126 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. struck) (noting that “the fact that [an applicant] is not physically confined does not preclude h…
  • Ex Parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).published
    See Ex parte Renier, 734 S.W.2d 349, at 353 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); Ex parte Crosley 548 S.W.2d 409, at 410 (Tex.Crim.App.1977). 7 .
  • Harry L. Bowles v. State, No. 01-04-00801-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 17, 2006).published
    See ex parte Crosley , 548 S.W.2d 409, 410 (Tex. Crim.
Show 1 more citing case
  • Ex parte Villalpando, 35 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000).published
    The appropriate manner by which a defendant can assert a collateral challenge to such use of a prior misdemeanor conviction is by: (1) a post-conviction habeas application filed under article V, section 16 of the Texas Constitution in the…
At page 409 Jurisdiction over habeas corpus for misdemeanor convictions8 citing casesOPINION DALLY, Commissioner. This is an attempt to appeal from the action of the trial court. The trial court refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus and…opening of page *409 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 7 listed here
  • Ex Parte Jose Jaime De Hoyos, No. 04-18-00979-CR (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 14, 2019).unpublished
    As De Hoyos asserts in his brief, “[b]oth county and district courts have original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings when attacks are made upon the validity of misdemeanor convictions.” Ex parte Crosley, 548 S.W.2d 409, 409 (Tex. C…
  • Ex Parte: Curtis Antonio Davis, No. 12-09-00172-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 10, 2010).published 2 cites
    Ex parte Crosley, 548 S.W.2d 409, 409 (Tex. Crim.
  • in Re Herman R. Diaz v. State, No. 01-08-00694-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 20, 2008).published
    Ann. art. 11.07, sec.1 (Vernon Supp. 2007) (providing that it applies to felony convictions); Ex parte Crosley , 548 S.W.2d 409, 409 (Tex. Crim.
  • in Re: Curtis Antonio Davis, No. 12-08-00274-CR (Tex. App.—Tyler July 23, 2008).published
    Ex parte Crosley, 548 S.W.2d 409, 409 (Tex. Crim.
  • Michial Lynn Moses v. State, No. 06-07-00141-CR (Tex. App.—Texarkana Sept. 25, 2007).unpublished
    Ex parte Crosley , 548 S.W.2d 409, 409-10 (Tex. Crim.
  • Ex Parte: Christopher Reveles, No. 13-06-00143-CR, 2007 WL 2324002 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 16, 2007).unpublished
    App. 1998); Ex parte Crosley , 548 S.W.2d 409, 409-10 (Tex. Crim.
  • in the Interest of Alexis Megan Ray, a Child, No. 06-06-00047-CV (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 25, 2006).unpublished
    Ex parte Crosley , 548 S.W.2d 409, 409-10 (Tex. Crim.
Other citing cases5 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ex Parte Andre Augusta CROSLEY
54339.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Mar 23, 1977.
Published opinion
548 S.W.2d 409
1977 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1043
Randall L. Freedman, Dallas, for appellant., Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Dally.
Cited by 46 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

This is an attempt to appeal from the action of the trial court. The trial court refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus and refused to hear the application for the writ in which the applicant alleges that a misdemeanor judgment of conviction is void. No appeal lies from the court’s action. See e. g. Nichlos v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 367, 255 S.W.2d 522 (1953); Mayes v. State, 538 S.W.2d 637 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Since this is not a felony conviction, the habeas corpus proceeding is not governed by the provisions of Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P., and this Court will not take original jurisdiction of the writ. See Ex parte Phelper, 433 S.W.2d 897 (Tex.Cr.App.1968).

Both county and district courts have original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings when attacks are made upon the validity of misdemeanor convictions; see Article 5, Section 8 of the Constitution of Texas; Articles 11.05 and 11.09, V.A.C.C.P., and petitioners have a right of appeal from an order denying relief. See Ex parte Phelper, supra; Mayes v. State, supra.

[*410] We observe that the appellant’s sworn application contains allegations of fact which if true would show the appellant’s misdemeanor conviction is void. It is alleged that the appellant, while indigent, while unrepresented by counsel, and without waiving his right to counsel, was convicted for the offense of theft, and punishment was assessed which included confinement in jail. Even though the applicant may have been discharged from confinement, collateral legal consequences of his conviction may entitle him to relief. See Ex parte Burt, 499 S.W.2d 109 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Ex parte Langston, 510 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968); cf. Fouke v. State, 529 S.W.2d 772 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). The applicant is entitled to have a hearing on the allegations which he has made. See Ex parte Phelper, 442 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.