Hanger v. State

1962 OK CR 82, 373 P.2d 272, 1962 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 244
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 11, 1962
DocketA-13191
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 1962 OK CR 82 (Hanger v. State) 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
Hanger v. State, 1962 OK CR 82, 373 P.2d 272, 1962 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 244 (Okla. Ct. App. 1962).

Opinion

NIX, Presiding Judge.

This is the third petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus raising the identical questions as in the previous two cases; which is that the judgment and sentence made and entered on the 6th day of May, 1959, in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma wherein said petitioner was charged by information with the crime of Indecent Acts Toward a Minor Child under the age of fourteen years, After Former Conviction of a Felony, and upon his plea of Guilty, received a sentence of Ten (10) years in the State Penitentiary at McAlester, under which the petitioner is being restrained of his liberty; is Void for lack of jurisdiction to entertain the same, petitioner being of unsound mind.

Petitioner admits in his petition that on two previous occasions he has presented to this Court an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and in each case the writ was denied. See Hanger v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 357 P.2d 251; and In Matter of the Habeas Corpus of Hanger, Okl.Cr., 363 P.2d 952.

In the case of In Matter of the Habeas Corpus of Hanger, supra, the Court stated:

“Where the Court of Criminal Appeals has denied application for writ of habeas corpus, it will not ordinarily entertain subsequent application for such writ on same grounds and facts, or any other grounds or facts existing when first application was made, whether presented then or not.”

Since the petition is based upon the identical grounds or facts stated in the petition for the preceding cases, the Writ is accordingly denied.

BRETT, J., concurs. BUSSEY, J., not participating.

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

Related

Newell v. State
1967 OK CR 81 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1967)
Mayfield v. Page
1965 OK CR 67 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1965)
Berryhill v. Page
1964 OK CR 48 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1964)
Kessinger v. Raines
1964 OK CR 27 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1964)
Fletcher v. State
1963 OK CR 82 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1962 OK CR 82, 373 P.2d 272, 1962 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanger-v-state-oklacrimapp-1962.