In re Ballard

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

In re Ballard

1952 OK CR 10, 240 P.2d 455, 95 Okla. Crim. 89, 1952 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 182

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided January 23, 1952·No. No. A-11591·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

JONES, J.

This is an original action wherein the petitioner, Lawrence Ballard, seeks a writ of error coram nobis for the purpose of presenting again the facts in connection with a homicide committed by him on May 20, 1921, in Choctaw county, Oklahoma, on account of which the petitioner was tried and convicted for murder on October 29, 1921, in the district court of Choctaw county.

This court has never issued the writ of error coram nobis because it was a common law writ which has been largely superseded by the right given to one convicted of crime to file a motion in arrest of judgment, or a motion for new trial because of newly discovered evidence. Gibson v. State, 87 Okla. Cr. 260, 197 P. 2d 310; State ex rel Burford v. Sullivan, 86 Okla. Cr. 364, 193 P. 2d 594; Ex parte Hinley, 94 Okla. Cr. 267, 234 P. 2d 947.

It further appears that the identical question now presented has been heretofore presented by habeas corpus and decided adversely to petitioner. Ex parte Ballard, 93 Okla. Cr. 141, 225 P. 2d 825.

The writ of error coram nobis is denied.

BRETT, P. J., concurs.

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

JONES, J.

This is an original action wherein the petitioner, Lawrence Ballard, seeks a writ of error coram nobis for the purpose of presenting again the facts in connection with a homicide committed by him on May 20, 1921, in Choctaw county, Oklahoma, on account of which the petitioner was tried and convicted for murder on October 29, 1921, in the district court of Choctaw county.

This court has never issued the writ of error coram nobis because it was a common law writ which has been largely superseded by the right given to one convicted of crime to file a motion in arrest of judgment, or a motion for new trial because of newly discovered evidence. Gibson v. State, 87 Okla. Cr. 260, 197 P. 2d 310; State ex rel Burford v. Sullivan, 86 Okla. Cr. 364, 193 P. 2d 594; Ex parte Hinley, 94 Okla. Cr. 267, 234 P. 2d 947.

It further appears that the identical question now presented has been heretofore presented by habeas corpus and decided adversely to petitioner. Ex parte Ballard, 93 Okla. Cr. 141, 225 P. 2d 825.

The writ of error coram nobis is denied.

BRETT, P. J., concurs.

In re Ballard, 1952 OK CR 10, 240 P.2d 455, 95 Okla. Crim. 89, 1952 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 182 (Okla. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

1952 OK CR 10 (In re Ballard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related