Ex Parte Bass

40 S.W.2d 457, 328 Mo. 195, 1931 Mo. LEXIS 600
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJune 24, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 40 S.W.2d 457 (Ex Parte Bass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex Parte Bass, 40 S.W.2d 457, 328 Mo. 195, 1931 Mo. LEXIS 600 (Mo. 1931).

Opinions

*196 ATWOOD, J.

This is an original proceeding1 by the Habeas Corpus Act to procure the discharge of Alvin Bass, who is alleged to be *197 unlawfully restrained by Leslie Rudolph, Warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary. Our writ was issued on petitioner’s duly verified application, production of the body was waived, and verified return to said writ was filed by said warden stating that he held the body of said Alvin Bass “by virtue and under the authority of a commitment issued by the Juvenile Court of Greene County, Missouri, during the January Term, 1931, and dated the 28th day of January, 1931; a certified copy of which commitment is attached hereto and made a part of this return.” The petitioner did not plead to this return, whereupon the warden filed motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In Ex parte Flournoy, 310 Mo. 355, 357, 275 S. W. 923, we said:

“The return and not the petition is the principal pleading. [Ex parte Thornberry, 300 Mo. l. c. 674.] The latter has performed its function when the writ is issued. It is to the return, therefore, that a traverse or denial must be made to the material facts set forth in the return, and upon its being filed the case is at issue. Without the filing of these pleadings no issue is presented, and only a dismissal is authorized, unless, as at bar, a failure to comply with the required procedure is ignored and the case is heard on the allegations of the petition alone.”

A\Te have also many times held that if the averments of the return are not denied or contradicted by some appropriate pleading, the facts set out in the return are to be taken as the ultimate facts in the case, regardless of the allegations pleaded in the petition. [State ex rel. v. Skinker (Mo. Sup.), 25 S. W. (2d) 472, 476; Schein v. Gallivan, 321 Mo. 268, 10 S. W. (2d) 521; Ex parte Knight, 308 Mo. 538, 540, 272 S. W. 922; Ex parte Thornberry, 300 Mo. 661, 666, 254 S. W. 1087, 1088; In re Tartar, 278 Mo. 356, 365, 213 S. W. 94; In re Breck, 252 Mo. 302, 319, 158 S. W. 843; Ex parte Durbin, 102 Mo. 100, 104, 14 S. W. 821; Ex parte Bryan, 76 Mo. 253.]

Looking then to the return for the ultimate facts in this ease we find them in the certified copy of the commitment thereto attached and made a part thereof, which is in fact a certified copy of the judgment and sentence of the Juvenile Court of Greene County, Missouri, rendered Saturday, January 24, 1931, in the case wherein the State of Missouri was plaintiff and Alvin Bass was defendant, ae follows:

“Now on this day comes on for hearing the above entitled cause, on information duly filed, in said court, charging, under oath, that the said defendant, on the 30th day of December, 1930, in the County of Greene, State of Missouri, violated the criminal laws of said State, in that he did then and there commit the crime of robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, the said defendant appearing in open court in his own proper per *198 son, and his counsel appearing in his behalf, and the parents of said defendant, and the prosecuting attorney of said county, also being' present, and said defendant having talked to and consulted with a friend and with his said attorney, and the judge of said juvenile court having duly advised himself as to the previous record of said defendant, and having determined and directed that further steps, and the trial of said defendant, herein, shall proceed against said defendant, not as a delinquent, but under the general criminal law,' and said information having been read to said defendant, and said defendant being now duly arraigned upon said information charging him with the commission of the crime hereinabove specifically stated, for his plea thereto says that he cannot deny but that he is guilty in manner and form as he stands charged in the said information and of this plea puts himself upon the mercy of the court. Whereupon the said court, having heard the plea of guilty aforesaid doth find that said defendant is over the age of sixteen years, but under the age of seventeen years; and also that the defendant is guilty as charged in the said information, and doth fix and assess the punishment of said defendant for said crime at imprisonment in the State Penitentiary, at Jefferson City, Missouri, for the period of twenty-five years from the 24th day of January 1931. And it is now by the court ordered that said defendant stand committed unto the charge and custody of the probation officer of this county to await the judgment and sentence of said juvenile court herein.
“And thereafter, on said day and date, come said defendent, his said attorney, his parents, and the prosecuting attorney of said county, each in his and her own proper person, here in open court, whereupon said defendant is informed by the court that he is adjudged guilty as charged in said information on his confession to the crime of robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon. And, being now asked by said court if he has any legal cause to show why judgment shall not be pronounced against him according to the general law governing crimes, and no sufficient cause being shown against it, it is therefore considered, adjudged, sentenced and ordered by said juvenile court, that said defendant, Alvin Bass, having pleaded guilty as aforesaid, be, and he hereby is by said court sentenced to be, imprisoned in the State Penitentiary at Jefferson City, Missouri, for the period of twenty-five years from the 24th day of January, 1931, there to be confined, kept and treated in the manner prescribed by law, until the sentence and judgment of the court herein be complied with, or until said defendant shall be otherwise discharged by due course of law. And it is further adjudged and ordered by said court that the said State have and recover of and from said defendant the costs of this prosecution and that execution issue therefor; also that the clerk of *199 said court shall forthwith make out and deliver to the probation officer of this county a certified copy of this judgment of conviction and sentence, duly certified by such clerk; and that said probation officer in person or by a general and usual deputy shall without delay cause said defendant to be transported to said penitentiary and delivered to the keeper thereof.”

The grounds of the illegality of the prisoner’s detention stated in his application upon-which oiu* vrit issued, and which are now urged in his behalf, are as follow»:

1 ‘ 1. That the court in entering the dismissal of the proceedings in said cause under the juvenile procedure divested the court of all jurisdiction to further hear and determine the same, and all proceedings had thereafter under the said information signed by J. Will Webb, the Chief Probation Officer, was illegal and void for want of jurisdiction, and for the further reason that the court had directed that all proceedings following the said dismissal should be under the principles of procedure of the general criminal laws of the State and was void.

“2.

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

Related

Hatfield v. McCluney
871 S.W.2d 657 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)
City of Chesterfield v. Director of Revenue
811 S.W.2d 375 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1991)
Huffman v. State of Missouri
399 F. Supp. 1196 (W.D. Missouri, 1975)
Bayside Timber Co. v. Board of Supervisors
20 Cal. App. 3d 1 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)
State v. Goff
449 S.W.2d 591 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1970)
State Ex Rel. Arbeiter v. Reagan
427 S.W.2d 371 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1968)
State v. Reid
391 S.W.2d 200 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1965)
Curtis v. Tozer
374 S.W.2d 557 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1964)
Harris v. Bates Ex Rel. Curry
270 S.W.2d 763 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1954)
City of St. Louis v. Butler Co.
219 S.W.2d 372 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1949)
State Ex Rel. McMonigle v. Spears
213 S.W.2d 210 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1948)
State v. Johnson
174 S.W.2d 139 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1943)
Ex Parte Label v. Sullivan
165 S.W.2d 639 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1942)
Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Town of Carrollton
142 S.W.2d 849 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1940)
Bonzo v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.
125 S.W.2d 75 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1939)
Ex Parte McKittrick Ex Rel. Donaldson v. Brown
85 S.W.2d 385 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1935)
Ex Parte Fichtel v. Houser
84 S.W.2d 977 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1935)
State Ex Rel. State Building Commission v. Smith
81 S.W.2d 613 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1935)
Thompson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
69 S.W.2d 936 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1934)
State Ex Rel. Shartel v. Trimble
63 S.W.2d 37 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 S.W.2d 457, 328 Mo. 195, 1931 Mo. LEXIS 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-bass-mo-1931.