Ex Parte Herren

1942 OK CR 52, 124 P.2d 276, 74 Okla. Crim. 154, 1942 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 226
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 25, 1942
DocketNo. A-10184.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 1942 OK CR 52 (Ex Parte Herren) 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 Herren, 1942 OK CR 52, 124 P.2d 276, 74 Okla. Crim. 154, 1942 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 226 (Okla. Ct. App. 1942).

Opinion

JONES, J.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus wherein the petitioner seeks his release from the State Penitentiary.

The petitioner was convicted in the district court of Carter county of the crime of receiving stolen property and sentenced to< serve one year and one day in the State Penitentiary. His conviction was appealed to this court and the judgment was affirmed. Lee Herren v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 254, 115 P. 2d 258.

In this proceeding it is contended by petitioner that his commitment is void for the reason that at the time of his preliminary examination he filed an application for a change of venue; and, in addition thereto, a motion for a continuance because of the absence of his counsel, and that the justice of the peace declined to continue said cause or to grant said, change of venue which was tantamount to a denial of counsel in the preliminary examination.

All of the matters and facts set forth in the petition herein, if true, existed at the time of the appeal. This court will not permit an accused to appeal his judgment of conviction and speculate upon his chances of securing a reversal and then, after the judgment of conviction is affirmed, come into court in a habeas corpus proceeding and raise the same or other grounds which might entitle the petitioner to a new trial or his release from custody. To do so would not be conducive to' the efficient administration of our criminal laws. If this were not so, then *156 a criminal case would never end, but after trial and conviction the court would be called upon to again try the issues by habeas corpus.

The demurrer of the respondent to the petition filed herein is sustained, and the writ is denied.

BAREFOOT, P. J., and DOYLE, J., concur.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Ruffing v. Jameson
123 N.W.2d 654 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1963)
Camplain v. State
1963 OK CR 77 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1963)
Ward v. Raines
1961 OK CR 39 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1961)
Application of Simpson
1960 OK CR 52 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1960)
Ellis v. Raines
1960 OK CR 34 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1960)
Application of Beeler
1959 OK CR 111 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1959)
In Re the Habeas Corpus of York
1955 OK CR 55 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1955)
In Re Sullivan
1946 OK CR 63 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1946)
In Re Booth
1942 OK CR 91 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1942 OK CR 52, 124 P.2d 276, 74 Okla. Crim. 154, 1942 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-herren-oklacrimapp-1942.