In re Butler

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

In re Butler

1955 OK CR 92, 286 P.2d 281, 1955 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 240

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 20, 1955

DocketNo. A-12224

StatusPublished

This text of 1955 OK CR 92 (In re Butler) 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

In re Butler, 1955 OK CR 92, 286 P.2d 281, 1955 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 240 (Okla. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, Presiding Judge.

This is an original action in habeas corpus by Raymond Butler to secure his release from the state penitentiary.

After the petition was filed the same was duly set for hearing but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and no evidence was offered in his behalf.

A careful reading of the petition shows that it is wholly without merit. There are several general allegations concerning-the alleged error of the court in the admission of evidence at the trial of the accused and alleged error of the county attorney in making an inflammatory argument to the jury, but these are questions of law which should have been presented by an appeal and which may not be presented by habeas corpus. Habeas corpus 'may not be substituted for an appeal and the only question which we will consider [282]*282in habeas corpus is whether the court had jurisdiction -of'-.the offense charged, jurisdiction of the accused and jurisdiction to render the particular judgment.

. ■The.'writ is denied. . :

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.

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

JONES, Presiding Judge.

This is an original action in habeas corpus by Raymond Butler to secure his release from the state penitentiary.

After the petition was filed the same was duly set for hearing but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and no evidence was offered in his behalf.

A careful reading of the petition shows that it is wholly without merit. There are several general allegations concerning-the alleged error of the court in the admission of evidence at the trial of the accused and alleged error of the county attorney in making an inflammatory argument to the jury, but these are questions of law which should have been presented by an appeal and which may not be presented by habeas corpus. Habeas corpus 'may not be substituted for an appeal and the only question which we will consider [282]*282in habeas corpus is whether the court had jurisdiction -of'-.the offense charged, jurisdiction of the accused and jurisdiction to render the particular judgment.

. ■The.'writ is denied. . :

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1955 OK CR 92, 286 P.2d 281, 1955 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-butler-oklacrimapp-1955.