Ex Parte Bell

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Bell

1935 OK CR 90, 47 P.2d 886, 57 Okla. Crim. 257, 1935 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 61

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 18, 1935

DocketNo. A-8960.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1935 OK CR 90 (Ex Parte Bell) 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 Bell, 1935 OK CR 90, 47 P.2d 886, 57 Okla. Crim. 257, 1935 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 61 (Okla. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

EDWARDS, ,J.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges be is unlawfully restrained by tbe warden of the state penitentiary. That on tbe 27th day of February, 1929, be was convicted in tbe district court of Choctaw county, on bis plea of guilty of theft of domestic fowls, and was sentenced to serve a term of two years in tbe state penitentiary. That at the time he was under twenty-one years of age, and under the authority of sections 2803 and 2804 C. O. S. 1921, his sentence was suspended by the trial judge. That thereafter, on the 11th day of April, 1934, the district judge of said Choctaw county made an order attempting to revoke the suspended sentence made at the time of said sentence, and ordering petitioner to- serve said sentence.

This court in the case of Ex parte King, 40 Okla. Cr. 21, 266 Pac. 511, and in other cases has held that suspended sentences can be revoked only during the term of said sentence ; that after tbe expiration of the term tbe sentence is discharged and the district court is without power to revoke.

*259 It follows that the writ should be granted and the petitioner discharged. It is so ordered.

DAVENPORT, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

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

EDWARDS, ,J.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges be is unlawfully restrained by tbe warden of the state penitentiary. That on tbe 27th day of February, 1929, be was convicted in tbe district court of Choctaw county, on bis plea of guilty of theft of domestic fowls, and was sentenced to serve a term of two years in tbe state penitentiary. That at the time he was under twenty-one years of age, and under the authority of sections 2803 and 2804 C. O. S. 1921, his sentence was suspended by the trial judge. That thereafter, on the 11th day of April, 1934, the district judge of said Choctaw county made an order attempting to revoke the suspended sentence made at the time of said sentence, and ordering petitioner to- serve said sentence.

This court in the case of Ex parte King, 40 Okla. Cr. 21, 266 Pac. 511, and in other cases has held that suspended sentences can be revoked only during the term of said sentence ; that after tbe expiration of the term tbe sentence is discharged and the district court is without power to revoke.

*259 It follows that the writ should be granted and the petitioner discharged. It is so ordered.

DAVENPORT, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1935 OK CR 90, 47 P.2d 886, 57 Okla. Crim. 257, 1935 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-bell-oklacrimapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack