"This Court does not hear evidence. In proceedings of this character it has been the uniform practice of this Court for many years to require that resort be first had to application for habeas corpus to the judge of tire trial court or other county court, county court at law or district judge of the county for relief, and an application for habeas corpus originally filed in this Court attacking the legality of confinement under a misdemeanor judgment will not otherwise be entertained.”
How later courts described this case
- "This Court does not hear evidence. In proceedings of this character it has been the uniform practice of this Court for many years to require that resort be first had to application for habeas corpus to the judge of tire trial court or other county court, county court at law or district judge of the county for relief, and an application for habeas corpus originally filed in this Court attacking the legality of confinement under a misdemeanor judgment will not otherwise be entertained.”
- “[I]t has been the uniform practice of this court for many years to require that resort be first had to application for habeas corpus to the judge of the trial court or other county court, county court at law or district judge of the county for relief.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOODLEY, Judge.
The letter of the above named applicant was filed in this Court as an original application for habeas corpus.
Relator is confined in jail and complains that the two judgments, each assessing a one year jail term, were not properly cu-mulated.
This Court does not hear evidence.
In proceedings of this character it has been the uniform practice of this Court for many years to require that resort be first had to application for habeas corpus to the judge of the trial court or other county court, county court at law or district judge of the county for relief, and an application for habeas corpus originally filed in this Court attacking the legality of confinement under a misdemeanor judgment will not otherwise be entertained. 21 Tex. Jur. 445, Habeas Corpus, Sec. 34; Ex parte
*295
Fitzpatrick, Tex.Cr.App., 320 S.W.2d 683 ; Ex parte Japan, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 482 , 38 S.W. 43 ; Ex parte Lynn, 19 Tex.App. 120 ; art. 121, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.
The application is dismissed.