In Re Mitchell

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

In Re Mitchell

1912 OK CR 290, 123 P. 1133, 7 Okla. Crim. 715, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 119

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 16, 1912

DocketNo. A-1641.

StatusPublished

This text of 1912 OK CR 290 (In Re Mitchell) 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 Mitchell, 1912 OK CR 290, 123 P. 1133, 7 Okla. Crim. 715, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 119 (Okla. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On March 8, 1912, petitioner filed in this court his application for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging himself to be illegally restrained of his liberty by E. A. Pierce, sheriff of Pottawatomie county, in that upon an information filed in the county court of said county, •charging a violation of the prohibition law, he was tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six months in the county jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and costs, and further averring that said judgment and sentence had been fully executed. The application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied on the ground that said petition did not sufficiently show the execution and satisfaction of the said judgment and sentence. On March 16, petitioner by his counsel of record, moved to dismiss his application at the costs of petitioner. The motion to dismiss is hereby granted and the case dismissed at the costs of the petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM.

On March 8, 1912, petitioner filed in this court his application for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging himself to be illegally restrained of his liberty by E. A. Pierce, sheriff of Pottawatomie county, in that upon an information filed in the county court of said county, •charging a violation of the prohibition law, he was tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six months in the county jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and costs, and further averring that said judgment and sentence had been fully executed. The application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied on the ground that said petition did not sufficiently show the execution and satisfaction of the said judgment and sentence. On March 16, petitioner by his counsel of record, moved to dismiss his application at the costs of petitioner. The motion to dismiss is hereby granted and the case dismissed at the costs of the petitioner.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK CR 290, 123 P. 1133, 7 Okla. Crim. 715, 1912 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mitchell-oklacrimapp-1912.