
    Ex parte STANFORD.
    (No. 9438.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 6, 1925.)
    1. Habeas corpus <&wkey;>4 — Writ of habeas corpus cannot serve office of appeal.
    Writ of habeas corpus cannot serve the office of an appeal.
    2. Habeas corpus i&wkey;4 — Appeal, and not writ of habeas corpus, held proper remedy to review nunc pro tunc order sentencing accused.
    Appeal, and not writ of habeas corpus, helé proper remedy to review nunc pro tune order sentencing accused.
    other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal' from District Court, Donley County; R. L. Templeton, Judge."
    Application by L. D. Stanford for writ of habeas corpus. From a judgment denying the writ, applicant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See, also, 269 S. W. 437.
    Will S. Payne, of Dallas, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

On April 18, 1924, applicant was convicted in the district court of Don-ley county for unlawfully, transporting intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of one year.

This case was appealed to this court, and on January 14, 1925, was dismissed by the court because of insufficient recognizance. The recognizance was afterward corrected, and again on March 4, 1925, said case was dismissed because the record showed no sentence. On March 26, 1925, the district court of Donley county duly entered its nunc pro tunc order, sentencing said applicant to one year in the penitentiary. Applicant did not appeal from said nunc pro tunc order sentencing him to one year in the penitentiary, although he had a right -to do so. Bennett v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 652, 194 S. W. 145, 148. Instead of appealing from said sentence and judgment, appellant on March 24, 1925, filed his application for'the writ of habeas " corpus before the district court of Donley county, asking his release under the apparent theory that, as he had not been sentenced, a valid sentence could not be pronounced upon him, and, said application having been denied, applicant excepted and gave notice of' appeal to this court.

It is well settled by the authorities that a writ of habeas corpus cannot serve the office of an appeal. Ex parte Beland, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 614, 252 S. W. 529, and authorities there cited. It is true that applicant could not appeal from the conviction until he had been sentenced, but on March 26, 1925, when sentence was actually pronounced upon him, he had the right to appeal. See Bennett’s Case supra. This was his legal, statutory, and adequate remedy.

For the reasons stated, the district court properly refused to grant his writ of habeas corpus, and his action in so doing is hereby affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been exam-' ined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.  