Arley Ward v. State of Oklahoma

Tenth Circuit

Arley Ward v. State of Oklahoma

376 F.2d 847, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6526

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 1967

Docket9198

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 376 F.2d 847 (Arley Ward v. State of Oklahoma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arley Ward v. State of Oklahoma, 376 F.2d 847, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6526 (10th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In 1965, Ward was convicted in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, of the crime of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to life imprisonment. This conviction is presently pending on appeal in the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals. Ward, now in custody of the Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, instituted this habeas corpus proceeding seeking an order declaring a 1934 judgment and sentence for armed robbery to be null and void. It is alleged that the 1934 conviction was prejudicially used by the prosecution to secure Ward’s conviction for murder in 1965. The trial court dismissed the ha-beas corpus proceeding without a hearing.

It is conceded that the 1934 sentence has been served and that Ward’s detention is under the 1965 life sentence. Habeas corpus is available only to a prisoner who is in custody pursuant to the court judgment which is challenged by the proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. *848 909, 4 L.Ed.2d 963; United States ex rel. McDonald v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 3 Cir., 343 F.2d 447; Douglas v. Green, 6 Cir., 333 F.2d 73, cert. denied 379 U.S. 862, 85 S.Ct. 126, 13 L.Ed.2d 66; United States v. Bradford, 2 Cir., 194 F.2d 197, cert. denied 343 U.S. 979, 72 S.Ct. 1079, 96 L.Ed. 1371. If Ward’s 1934 conviction was prejudicially used in the 1965 murder trial, it is an error to be reviewed on appeal, and not by habeas corpus.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In 1965, Ward was convicted in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, of the crime of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to life imprisonment. This conviction is presently pending on appeal in the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals. Ward, now in custody of the Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, instituted this habeas corpus proceeding seeking an order declaring a 1934 judgment and sentence for armed robbery to be null and void. It is alleged that the 1934 conviction was prejudicially used by the prosecution to secure Ward’s conviction for murder in 1965. The trial court dismissed the ha-beas corpus proceeding without a hearing.

It is conceded that the 1934 sentence has been served and that Ward’s detention is under the 1965 life sentence. Habeas corpus is available only to a prisoner who is in custody pursuant to the court judgment which is challenged by the proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. *848 909, 4 L.Ed.2d 963; United States ex rel. McDonald v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 3 Cir., 343 F.2d 447; Douglas v. Green, 6 Cir., 333 F.2d 73, cert. denied 379 U.S. 862, 85 S.Ct. 126, 13 L.Ed.2d 66; United States v. Bradford, 2 Cir., 194 F.2d 197, cert. denied 343 U.S. 979, 72 S.Ct. 1079, 96 L.Ed. 1371. If Ward’s 1934 conviction was prejudicially used in the 1965 murder trial, it is an error to be reviewed on appeal, and not by habeas corpus.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

376 F.2d 847, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arley-ward-v-state-of-oklahoma-ca10-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack