
    Ex parte TAYLOR.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 8, 1911.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 636) — Trial—Presence of Accused.
    Defendant in a misdemeanor case, in which it was compulsory for a court to assess a jail penalty, had a right to be present at all stages of the trial.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1465-1482; Dec. Dig. § 636.]
    2. Habeas Corpus (§ 30) — Grounds of Remedy — Void and Voidable Judgments.
    Where an irregularity during a trial is such that it renders the proceedings void, accused is entitled to relief by habeas corpus; but where the indictment or information is regular, is based on a valid law, and the judgment is rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the proceedings complained of only render the judgment voidable, the appellate court on habeas cox-pus will not go behind the judgment.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 25; Dec. Dig. § 30.]
    3. Habeas Corpus (§ 22) — Collateral Attack on Judgments — County Court.
    The county court being a court of general jurisdiction in misdemeanor cases, in which it is compulsory upon the court to assess a jail penalty, its judgment cannot be collaterally by habeas corpus.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. §§ 19%, 20; Dec. Dig. § 22; Contempt, Cent. Dig. § 217.]
    4. Habeas Corpus (§ 3) — Remedy by Appeal.
    The writ of habeas corpus is not available as a means of effecting the purposes of an appeal, certiorari, or supersedeas.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 3; Dec. Dig. § 3.]
    5. Habeas Corpus (§ 30) — Grounds of Relief-Invalidity of Judgment — Errors and Irregularities.
    That the county court, in a trial of a misdemeanor case in which the assessment of a jail penalty was compulsory, charged the jury in the absence of the defendant, was not such an irregularity as to render the judgment void, and did not entitle defendant to relief by habeas corpus.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 25; Dee. Dig. § 30.]
    Appeal from Guadalupe County Court; J. M. Woods, Judge.
    Wash' Taylor was convicted of a misdemeanor, and his punishment assessed at fine and imprisonment. Prisoner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was granted, and from an order of the county judge remanding him, prisoner appeals.
    Affirmed
    C. EL Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Relator was tried in the county court of Guadalupe county, charged with the offense of theft of property under $50. The jury in said cause found relator guilty, and assessed his punishment at a fine of $100 and 30 days’ imprisonment in the county jail. .

As shown by this record, no motion for a new trial was filed, and no notice of appeal given; but relator, when confined in jail under said judgment, sued out a writ of habeas corpus, alleging: “Your petitioner would represent that he was tried and convicted, and was not personally present at said trial when the court charged the jury in said cause, and that he was absent through no fault of his. That said judgment of conviction is an absolute nullity, and in violation of the statutory law of this state.” The application was presented to the county judge of Guadalupe county, who granted the writ. The cause was heard on the 17th day of October, and relator was remanded by the county judge, from which judgment relator prosecuted this appeal.

It appears that on the trial of this case no exception was reserved to the action of the court, if he did read the charge in the absence of the defendant, on the trial of the case. This being a misdemeanor, in which it is compulsory for the court to assess a jail penalty, the defendant had the right to be present at all stages of the trial, and if appellant had filed a motion for a new trial, and shown that without his consent the trial in part was conducted during his absence, he should have been granted a new trial, and if the trial court had not done this, this court, perhaps, would reverse the case because of the irregularity. But as it appears that no bill of exceptions was reserved to the action of the court, no motion for a new trial was filed, nor was any notice of appeal given, the question presented to us in this applicatioh is: Will this court in habeas corpus proceedings go behind the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction on an allegation of an irregularity during the trial?

If the irregularity is such that renders the proceedings void, this court has held that we will grant relief under habeas corpus proceedings; but if the indictment or information is regular, based on a valid law, and the judgment is rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the proceedings complained of are only such that render the judgement voidable, but not void, under the writ of habeas corpus we would not go behind the judgment, but relator must bring such proceedings before us, if it is desired we review same by .appeal. A writ of habeas corpus is not available as a means of effecting tbe purposes of an appeal.

In the case of Cox v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 241, 109 S. W. 369, it is held: “Tbe county court being a court of general jurisdiction in misdemeanor cases, its judgment cannot be collaterally attacked, and tbe writ of babeas corpus is not available for that purpose. See Ex parte Call, 2 Tex. App. 497; Ex parte Scwartz, 2 Tex. App. 74; Ex parte McGill, 6 Tex. App. 498; Ex parte Boland, 11 Tex. App. 159; Ex parte Dickerson, 30 Tex. App. 448 [17 S. W. 1076]; Ex parte Branch, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 384 [37 S. W. 421], It is only in cases where tbe judgment is absolutely void that tbe writ is available, and not in cases where such judgment is voidable. Errors committed on tbe trial of tbe case do not render the judgment void. If tbe court bad jurisdiction, the judgment is not void. Tbe writ of habeas corpus is not available as a means of effecting the purpose of an appeal, certiorari, or supersedeas. Perry v. State, 41 Tex. 488; Darrah v. Westerlage, 44 Tex. 388; Ex parte Scwartz, 2 Tex. App. 74; Ex parte Oliver, 3 Tex. App. 345; Ex parte Slaren, 3 Tex. App. 662; Ex parte Mabray, 5 Tex. App. 93; Griffin v. State, 5 Tex. App. 457; Ex parte McGill, 6 Tex. App. 498; Ex parte Boland, 11 Tex. App. 159; Ex parte Dickerson, 30 Tex. App. 448 [17 S. W. 1076]; Milliken v. City Council, 54 Tex. 388 [38 Am. Rep. 629].”

Inasmuch as we do not think tbe irregularity complained of was such as to render tbe judgment void, relator cannot be granted any relief in habeas corpus proceedings, even if tbe allegation is true, and tbe court did not err in remanding relator.

The judgment is affirmed.  