Edwards v. State

1963 OK CR 10, 378 P.2d 789, 1963 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 116
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedJanuary 23, 1963
DocketNo. A-13305
StatusPublished

This text of 1963 OK CR 10 (Edwards v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Edwards v. State, 1963 OK CR 10, 378 P.2d 789, 1963 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 116 (Okla. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

NIX, Presiding Judge.

Original proceeding in which the petitioner, Edward Levell Collins, seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus, granting his release from the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma.

Petitioner plead Guilty to Information charging Robbery by Fear in case #19369 in Tulsa County District Court; and Second Degree Burglary Conjoint in case #19267, in same court, and was sentenced on April 13, 1962 to IS years on the first count, and 10 years on the second, to run concurrently.

Petitioner contends that the Information in each case was improper as it stated former convictions. There is no supporting evidence to show that the whole information was read to the jury, since the record of former convictions is on page 2 of each Information.

Since this is a matter to be reviewed on appeal and not on Habeas Corpus, we adhere strictly to the rule set down by this Court in Ex parte DeWolf, Okl.Cr.App., 256 P.2d 191; Ex parte Williams, Okl.Cr., 284 P.2d 1034; Ex parte Tommy Brewster, Okl.[790]*790Cr., 284 P.2d 755; Ex parte Young, Okl.Cr., 325 P.2d 85; which reads as. follows:

“Writ of habeas corpus may not be used as substitute for appeal, but is lim-. < ited to jurisdictional matters growing out of lack of jurisdiction of trial court ■ or loss thereof.”

The sole question in habeas corpus proceedings instituted by inmate of the State Penitentiary under commitment of plea 'of guilty to a felony charge, is whether judgment pronounced against this inmate was void. See Lindsey v. Raines, Okl.Cr.App., 374 P.2d 628, and cases cited therein.

Since the matters raised in this petition are strictly matters to be reviewed on appeal, and not on habeas corpus, the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is accordingly denied.

BRETT and BUSSEY, TT., concur.

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

Related

De Wolf v. State
1953 OK CR 49 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1953)
Lindsey v. State
1962 OK CR 96 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1962)
In Re Habeas Corpus of Brewster
1955 OK CR 69 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1955)
In Re Habeas Corpus of Williams
1955 OK CR 70 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1955)
In Re the Habeas Corpus of Young
1958 OK CR 31 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1963 OK CR 10, 378 P.2d 789, 1963 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-state-oklacrimapp-1963.