In Re Cavers

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

In Re Cavers

1945 OK CR 126, 164 P.2d 237, 81 Okla. Crim. 295, 1945 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 326

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma·Decided November 21, 1945·No. No. A-10617.·Published

Opinion

JONES, J.

The petitioner, Walter Cavers, seeks his release from confinement in the State Penitentiary by this proceeding in habeas corpus.

This is the second action of this nature filed by this petitioner. See former opinion, In re Cavers, 79 Okla. Cr. 262, 154 P. 2d 106. The allegations of the petition in the instant case are substantially the same as those heretofore considered in the former opinion.

It is the rule of the court that where the Criminal Court of Appeals has denied an application for writ of habeas corpus, it will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for such writ on the same grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, wheth *296 er then presented or not. Ex parte Gray, 74 Okla. Cr. 200, 124 P. 2d 430; Ex parte Davis, 74 Okla. Cr. 75, 123 P. 2d 300; Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. Cr. 115, 129 P. 2d 88; Denton v. Hunt, 79 Okla. Cr. 166, 152 P. 2d 698; In re Edwards, 79 Okla. Cr. 259, 154 P. 2d 105.

The writ of habeas corpus is denied.

BAREFOOT, P. J., concurs. DOYLE, J., not participating.

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

JONES, J.

The petitioner, Walter Cavers, seeks his release from confinement in the State Penitentiary by this proceeding in habeas corpus.

This is the second action of this nature filed by this petitioner. See former opinion, In re Cavers, 79 Okla. Cr. 262, 154 P. 2d 106. The allegations of the petition in the instant case are substantially the same as those heretofore considered in the former opinion.

It is the rule of the court that where the Criminal Court of Appeals has denied an application for writ of habeas corpus, it will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for such writ on the same grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, wheth *296 er then presented or not. Ex parte Gray, 74 Okla. Cr. 200, 124 P. 2d 430; Ex parte Davis, 74 Okla. Cr. 75, 123 P. 2d 300; Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. Cr. 115, 129 P. 2d 88; Denton v. Hunt, 79 Okla. Cr. 166, 152 P. 2d 698; In re Edwards, 79 Okla. Cr. 259, 154 P. 2d 105.

The writ of habeas corpus is denied.

BAREFOOT, P. J., concurs. DOYLE, J., not participating.

In Re Cavers, 1945 OK CR 126, 164 P.2d 237, 81 Okla. Crim. 295, 1945 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 326 (Okla. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

1945 OK CR 126 (In Re Cavers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related