Ex Parte Mayfield

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ex Parte Mayfield

1948 OK CR 46, 193 P.2d 617, 86 Okla. Crim. 413, 1948 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 172

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 13, 1948

DocketNo. A-10991.

StatusPublished

This text of 1948 OK CR 46 (Ex Parte Mayfield) 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 Mayfield, 1948 OK CR 46, 193 P.2d 617, 86 Okla. Crim. 413, 1948 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 172 (Okla. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

BAREFOOT, P. J.

Petitioner, William M. May-field, has filed in this court a petition for Avrit of habeas corpus, asking his release from the State Penitentiary at McAlester, where he is now confined by reason of a judgment and sentence entered in the district court of Canadian county.

Petitioner was convicted on November 12, 1946, of the crime of attempt to defraud, and sentenced to serve a term of four years.

A response to the order to show cause has been filed by the Attorney General on behalf of the Hon. Clarence P. Burford, Warden of the State Penitentiary, Avherein it is alleged:

“For further return to the rule issued herein, respondent says that the petition and application on file herein does not state facts sufficient to warrant the release and discharge of the petitioner as prayed for therein or to shoAV that said petitioner is entitled to be released or discharged from further retention and imprisonment in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

“For further return to the rule issued herein, respondent says and states that by the allegations of said petition filed herein no jurisdictional matters are raised and that all material allegations raised by said petitioner should have been raised by appeal and are not proposi *415 tions that can he legally raised by application for writ of habeas corpus.”

An examination of the petition and record reveals that this allegation is supported by the facts.

An examination of the records of this court also reveal that petitioner has heretofore filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court, in which the same issues are raised as here presented, and the writ was denied on April 23, 1947. Ex parte Mayfield, 84 Okla. Cr. 158, 179 P. 2d 934.

For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

JONES and BRETT, JJ., concur.

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