
    Ex parte VILLAREAL.
    (No. 4112.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 31, 1916.
    Rehearing Denied June 21, 1916.)
    1. Habeas Corpus &wkey;3l09 — Commitment for Grand Jury.
    Where there is cause or probable cause for believing an offense has been .committed, the district court on habeas corpus may hold the party for an investigation by the grand jury.
    [Ect Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corr pus, Cent. Dig. §§ 97, OS; Dec. Dig. ¡@=>109.]’
    2. Habeas Corpus <&wkey;85(l) — Burden of Proof.
    The burden of proof, in habeas corpus trials before a district judge for a reduction of bail and a discharge from custody, is upon the state, which must show probable cause for holding the arrested party.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 77, 78; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;85(l).]
    3. Larceny &wkey;>22 — Bringing Stolen Property'into State from Foreign Country.
    One who commits robbery, or steals, in Mexico, and brings the proceeds into Texas, is amenable to the laws of Texas, under the statute for bringing the stolen property or property acquired by robbery into the state.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. § 49; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>22.]
    4. Criminal Law <&wkey;225 — Preliminary Examination-Waiver of Introduction of Evidence.
    Where defendant, charged by complaint on information and belief with robbery and theft and bringing the stolen property into Texas, waived examination and gave bond, he could not complain, in habeas corpus proceedings, of being held under reasonable bond for appearance before the grand jury, having waived the introduction of evidence by the state.
    {Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 468-471; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>225.]
    Appeal from District Court,- Val Vorde County; Joseph Jones. Judge.
    Application for habeas corpus by R. R. Villareal. There was judgment holding defendant for Ms appearance before the grand jury, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    David E. Hume, of Eagle Pass, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was arrested on a complaint charging Mm with robbery and theft and bringing the stolen or acquired property into Texas and into the county of Terrell. The complaint is on information and belief. Upon Ms arrest he wias carried before the examining court, and there waived examination. The court fixed his bond at 8500. Later he applied to the district judge, for habeas corpus on two propositions: First, a reduction of bail, and second, for Ms discharge from custody. There was no evidence introduced on the trial as to the facts attending the robbery or theft. So the case stands upon the papers.

There had been no indictment returned prior to the hearing of the writ of habeas corpus. The rule, generally stated, with reference to matters involved is that where there is cause or probable cause for believing an offense has been committed the court may hold the party for an investigation by the grand jury. The burden of proof in habeas corpus trials of this character is upon the state, and it must show probable cause for holding the arrested party. Where there is no evidence introduced, the court, of course, must act upon the case as presented. If appellant committed the robbery or the theft in Mexico and brought the proceeds acquired by means of the robbery or the theft into Texas, he would be amenable to the laws of Texas under our statute, which prohibits bringing stolen property or property acquired by robbery into the state. Appellant, having waived an examimng trial and given bond, could not complain of what occurred in the examining court. He could have demanded a trial on the facts if he so desired. Having waived an examination and given bond, he could not complain of being held under reasonable bond. Had he required the introduction of evidence, the state would have had to produce it, but this matter he waived, it being within Ms power and right to do so. We are of opinion that, under the record as we have it, the court was not in error in holding appellant for his appearance before the grand jury. Evidence was not introduced in either trial that he was unable to give bond or the amount of bail which he could give. He stood upon the record as made. We are of opinion that the case as presented justified the court in holding appellant for his appearance before the grand jury. If he gave bond he would be discharged; failing to give it, he would he kept in custody. The evidence may or may not have been sufficient to hold him, but it is not before the court, and we think the record raises a sufficient probable ground to hold him for his appearance before the grand jury.

The judgment, therefore, will be affirmed. 
      <©5»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all-Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     