Ex Parte Davis

1916 OK CR 1, 146 P. 1085, 11 Okla. Crim. 403, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 24
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 19, 1915
DocketNo. A-2347.
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 1916 OK CR 1 (Ex Parte Davis) 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 Davis, 1916 OK CR 1, 146 P. 1085, 11 Okla. Crim. 403, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 24 (Okla. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinion

DOYLE, P. J.

On behalf of Robert Davis, a duly verified petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court and presented to the Presiding Judge, who refused the writ, but granted a rule to show cause why the writ should not issue, returnable on the 27th day of October, 1914, at which time the respondent, Warden Dick, filed answer. ' Later a stipulation was filed, and an agreed statement of facts, from which it appears that on the 30th day of September, A. D. 1914, and *404 for several clays prior thereto and thereafter, the Governor of the state was absent, and the Lieutenant Governor, as acting Governor in the absence from the state of the Governor, granted to petitioner a full and unconditional pardon of the offense for which he was convicted and sentenced to serve a term of five years in the penitentiary by the district court of McIntosh county, and that while the Governor was present in the state on the 6th day of October, 1914, he issued an order recalling and revoking said pardon.

It was brought to the attention of the court that on the 10th day of December, 1914, the Governor granted a parole to the petitioner, and he was discharged thereon. The object of the writ of habeas corptis is to relieve the petitioner from illegal restraint or unlawful imprisonment, and if this release is accomplished, and the petitioner is not held in actual custody at the time of the hearing, there is nothing for the court to adjudicate.

For this reason the writ of habeas corpus will be denied.

FURMAN and ARMSTRONG, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Caton v. State
291 Neb. 939 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2015)
Bostick v. Weber
2005 SD 12 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2005)
Angel v. State
1963 OK CR 96 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1963)
Williams v. State
155 So. 2d 322 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1963)
White v. Gladden
303 P.2d 226 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1956)
State Ex Rel. Koalska v. Rigg
76 N.W.2d 504 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1956)
In Re Habeas Corpus of Shetsky
1955 OK CR 42 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1955)
Ex Parte Anderson
1947 OK CR 97 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1947)
In Re Whisenhunt
1942 OK CR 155 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1942)
Fehl v. Lewis
64 P.2d 648 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1916 OK CR 1, 146 P. 1085, 11 Okla. Crim. 403, 1915 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-davis-oklacrimapp-1915.