Ex Parte Heintz

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Heintz

1923 OK CR 300, 219 P. 160, 25 Okla. Crim. 116, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 22

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 23, 1923

DocketNo. A-4894.

StatusPublished

This text of 1923 OK CR 300 (Ex Parte Heintz) 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 Heintz, 1923 OK CR 300, 219 P. 160, 25 Okla. Crim. 116, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 22 (Okla. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

DOYLE, J.

This is a petition, for writ of habeas corpus for the discharge of Wm. Heintz from-the penitentiary at McAlester, wherein it is alleged that he is unlawfully and illegally restrained of his liberty by J. H. Townsend; that the cause of said restraint is a commitment issued by the superior court of Custer county, Thomas A. Edwards, judge, on a charge that he did have in his possession one metal can, two pans, and a stand, which after being set up could be used for the production of distilled spirits, with the unlawful and felonious intent of the said Wm. .Heintz to set up for the purposes of using the same to produce distilled spirits, which judgment was rendered on the 19th day of June, 1923, wherein he was sentenced to be confined in the penitentiary at McAlester for the term of two years 'and to pay a fine of $200 and the costs, and alleging that said restraint is unauthorized, because the act approved February 5, 1923 (chapter 1, Session Laws of 1923), making it a felony to possess any still worm, or still, or a substitute therefor, such as a kettle, wash boiler, metal tank, or other vessel, for the purpose of using, or which, after being set up, may be used, for the production of distilled spirits, as determined *117 by the decision of this court in case of In re D. E. Smith, 24 Okla. Cr. 415, 218 Pac. 708.

The Attorney General concedes that the writ should issue and that the petitioner be discharged. In the case of Ex parte Smith, supra, the statute upon which this prosecution is based was held unconstitutional and1 void. It follows that petitioner is unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the respondent, and that he is entitled to be discharged from the imprisonment of which he complains, and he is therefore by the judgment of this court discharged therefrom.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

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

DOYLE, J.

This is a petition, for writ of habeas corpus for the discharge of Wm. Heintz from-the penitentiary at McAlester, wherein it is alleged that he is unlawfully and illegally restrained of his liberty by J. H. Townsend; that the cause of said restraint is a commitment issued by the superior court of Custer county, Thomas A. Edwards, judge, on a charge that he did have in his possession one metal can, two pans, and a stand, which after being set up could be used for the production of distilled spirits, with the unlawful and felonious intent of the said Wm. .Heintz to set up for the purposes of using the same to produce distilled spirits, which judgment was rendered on the 19th day of June, 1923, wherein he was sentenced to be confined in the penitentiary at McAlester for the term of two years 'and to pay a fine of $200 and the costs, and alleging that said restraint is unauthorized, because the act approved February 5, 1923 (chapter 1, Session Laws of 1923), making it a felony to possess any still worm, or still, or a substitute therefor, such as a kettle, wash boiler, metal tank, or other vessel, for the purpose of using, or which, after being set up, may be used, for the production of distilled spirits, as determined *117 by the decision of this court in case of In re D. E. Smith, 24 Okla. Cr. 415, 218 Pac. 708.

The Attorney General concedes that the writ should issue and that the petitioner be discharged. In the case of Ex parte Smith, supra, the statute upon which this prosecution is based was held unconstitutional and1 void. It follows that petitioner is unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the respondent, and that he is entitled to be discharged from the imprisonment of which he complains, and he is therefore by the judgment of this court discharged therefrom.

MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK CR 300, 219 P. 160, 25 Okla. Crim. 116, 1923 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-heintz-oklacrimapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack