Ex Parte Flannery

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Flannery

1922 OK CR 66, 205 P. 203, 21 Okla. Crim. 134, 1922 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 220

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided March 29, 1922·No. No. A-4013.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The applicant was, on June 10, 1921, in the municipal court of Ponca City, tried and convicted on two charges of disturbing the peace, in violation of a municipal ordinance of said city, and his punishment in each case was fixed at a fine of $100, pursuant to the penal provisions of the ordinance. The applicant refused to pay tliese fines and costs, and was thereupon ordered committed to the city jail, and was so committed. The applicant then instituted habeas corpus proceedings here, alleging that he is illegally restrained of his liberty, on the grounds that the municipal court was without jurisdiction to impose such, a penalty, and that the judgment and conviction so had is void and in violation of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma.

The court finds that the application should be sustained on authority of Ex parte Bochmann, 20 Okla. Cr. 78, 201 Pac. 537, and Ex parte Johnson, 20 Okla. Cr. 66, 201 Pac. 533. The writ is therefore allowed, and the petitioner ordered discharged.

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

PER CURIAM.

The applicant was, on June 10, 1921, in the municipal court of Ponca City, tried and convicted on two charges of disturbing the peace, in violation of a municipal ordinance of said city, and his punishment in each case was fixed at a fine of $100, pursuant to the penal provisions of the ordinance. The applicant refused to pay tliese fines and costs, and was thereupon ordered committed to the city jail, and was so committed. The applicant then instituted habeas corpus proceedings here, alleging that he is illegally restrained of his liberty, on the grounds that the municipal court was without jurisdiction to impose such, a penalty, and that the judgment and conviction so had is void and in violation of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma.

The court finds that the application should be sustained on authority of Ex parte Bochmann, 20 Okla. Cr. 78, 201 Pac. 537, and Ex parte Johnson, 20 Okla. Cr. 66, 201 Pac. 533. The writ is therefore allowed, and the petitioner ordered discharged.

Ex Parte Flannery, 1922 OK CR 66, 205 P. 203, 21 Okla. Crim. 134, 1922 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 220 (Okla. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

1922 OK CR 66 (Ex Parte Flannery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related