Ex Parte Beckner

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Beckner

1928 OK CR 81, 264 P. 633, 39 Okla. Crim. 185, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 273

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 28, 1928

DocketNo. A-6841.

StatusPublished

This text of 1928 OK CR 81 (Ex Parte Beckner) 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 Beckner, 1928 OK CR 81, 264 P. 633, 39 Okla. Crim. 185, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 273 (Okla. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this court December 7, 1927, avers that petitioner, William Beckner, was tried and convicted in the district court of Oklahoma county on a charge of adultery and was sentenced to serve a term of two years in the penitentiary; that he is now in the custody of Ben B. Dancy, sheriff of Oklahoma county, for the purpose of being taken to the penitentiary to begin serving said term.

It is averred that the district court of Oklahoma *186 county did not have jurisdiction to try the petitioner because no transcript of the proceedings had before the committing magistrate holding petitioner for trial to said district court was ever filed.

Counsel for the state interposed a demurrer to the petition.

It appears from the record that no objection to the information was made in the lower court. If a transcript of the proceedings had. before the committing magistrate was not on file with the court clerk, the question could be properly raised only by a motion to set aside the information on this ground before trial. The filing of the information gave the court jurisdiction to proceed in the case, and, no objection to the information having been made at the proper time, the district court properly proceeded with the trial, its judgment is regular and valid, and the imprisonment of the petitioner is lawful. The demurrer to the petition is therefore sustained and the writ denied.

EDWARDS and DAVENPORT, JJ., concur.

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

DOYLE, P. J.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this court December 7, 1927, avers that petitioner, William Beckner, was tried and convicted in the district court of Oklahoma county on a charge of adultery and was sentenced to serve a term of two years in the penitentiary; that he is now in the custody of Ben B. Dancy, sheriff of Oklahoma county, for the purpose of being taken to the penitentiary to begin serving said term.

It is averred that the district court of Oklahoma *186 county did not have jurisdiction to try the petitioner because no transcript of the proceedings had before the committing magistrate holding petitioner for trial to said district court was ever filed.

Counsel for the state interposed a demurrer to the petition.

It appears from the record that no objection to the information was made in the lower court. If a transcript of the proceedings had. before the committing magistrate was not on file with the court clerk, the question could be properly raised only by a motion to set aside the information on this ground before trial. The filing of the information gave the court jurisdiction to proceed in the case, and, no objection to the information having been made at the proper time, the district court properly proceeded with the trial, its judgment is regular and valid, and the imprisonment of the petitioner is lawful. The demurrer to the petition is therefore sustained and the writ denied.

EDWARDS and DAVENPORT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1928 OK CR 81, 264 P. 633, 39 Okla. Crim. 185, 1928 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-beckner-oklacrimapp-1928.