Ex Parte Baker

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Baker

1934 OK CR 102, 35 P.2d 285, 56 Okla. Crim. 139, 1934 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 49

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 10, 1934

DocketNo. A-8729.

StatusPublished

This text of 1934 OK CR 102 (Ex Parte Baker) 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

Ex Parte Baker, 1934 OK CR 102, 35 P.2d 285, 56 Okla. Crim. 139, 1934 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 49 (Okla. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

CHAPPELL, J.

Newt Baker filed bis petition in this court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging he was illegally restrained of his liberty by S. E. Brown, warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester.

Petitioner alleges he pleaded guilty to tbe charge of possession of morphine, and was sentenced upon such plea to serve a term of three years in the state penitentiary; to pay a fine of $500 and costs of $50.90; and that upon failure of petitioner to pay the costs that he be confined in the state penitentiary one day for each dollar of the costs unpaid.

Petitioner further alleges that he has served the time required by law to complete his sentence of three years and has served one day additional for each dollar of costs, but alleges that, since the commitment does not command him to be imprisoned at the rate of $1 per day until the fine has been thus paid, he is therefore entitled to be discharged without serving time for the fine.

Petitioner attached to his application a copy of the commitment, which contains the following language:

*140 “It is therefore considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that you, the said Newt Baker, are guilty of the crime of possession of morphine and that you be committed to be imprisoned in the state penitentiary at McAlester, in the State of Oklahoma, and be confined in said penitentiary for a term of three years and fine- of $500, at hard labor for said offense of possession of morphine.”

A judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction valid on its face is an unanswerable return to a writ of habeas corpus issued for the release of a prisoner imprisoned by order of said judgment. Ex parte Caveness, 3 Okla. Cr. 205, 105 Pac. 184; Ex parte Hanners, 28 Okla. Cr. 203, 230 Pac. 281.

The language in the commitment, a copy of which is attached to petitioner’s application, is that defendant be committed “for a term of three years and fine of $500,” which is broad enough to require his commitment until the fine is paid.

The writ is therefore denied.

EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

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