
    Ex parte CROSS.
    (No. 10317.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 9, 1926.)
    Habeas corpus <&wkey;3 — Relief from sentence for failure to follow indeterminate sentence law cannot be had by habeas corpus, but should be by direct proceeding in trial court.
    Relief from sentence of 19 years in penitentiary for robbery with firearms, on ground that sentence failed to follow law relative to indeterminate sentences, cannot be had by habeas corpus, since such proceeding is attempt to collaterally attack judgment which was subject to correction by direct proceeding in trial court.
    .Application for habeas corpus by Bailey Cross.
    Writ denied.
    Bailey Cross, in pro. per.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt, M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Relator presents to this court an original application-for habeas corpus, contending that a judgment condemning him to serve 19 years in the penitentiary for the offense of robbery with firearms is void, because the sentence failed to follow the law relative to indeterminate sentences and direct his imprisonment for not less than 5, nor more than 19, years. This is an attempt to collaterally attack the judgment which we think is not void, but subject to correction by direct proceeding in the trial court.

The writ is denied.  