Edwards v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Edwards v. State

1968 OK CR 156, 444 P.2d 842, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 369

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 4, 1968

DocketNo. A-14589

StatusPublished

This text of 1968 OK CR 156 (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, 1968 OK CR 156, 444 P.2d 842, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 369 (Okla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSSEY, Judge:

This is an original proceeding in which petitioner seeks modification of judgments and sentences rendered against him in the District Court of Oklahoma County, cases no. 32819 and 32985.

We have repeatedly held that in a habeas corpus proceeding where the trial court had jurisdiction of the person, subject matter, and authority under law to pronounce the judgment and sentence, and the judgment and sentence imposed is well within the terms of the statute, this Court is without authority to modify the same.

We are of the opinion, and therefore hold, that the petitioner has wholly failed to state facts sufficient to grant the relief prayed for, and the writ is accordingly denied. Writ denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.

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

BUSSEY, Judge:

This is an original proceeding in which petitioner seeks modification of judgments and sentences rendered against him in the District Court of Oklahoma County, cases no. 32819 and 32985.

We have repeatedly held that in a habeas corpus proceeding where the trial court had jurisdiction of the person, subject matter, and authority under law to pronounce the judgment and sentence, and the judgment and sentence imposed is well within the terms of the statute, this Court is without authority to modify the same.

We are of the opinion, and therefore hold, that the petitioner has wholly failed to state facts sufficient to grant the relief prayed for, and the writ is accordingly denied. Writ denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1968 OK CR 156, 444 P.2d 842, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-state-oklacrimapp-1968.