In Re Writ of Habeas Corpus by Watson

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

In Re Writ of Habeas Corpus by Watson

1956 OK CR 58, 297 P.2d 569, 1956 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 186

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 16, 1956

DocketA-12337

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1956 OK CR 58 (In Re Writ of Habeas Corpus by Watson) 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 Writ of Habeas Corpus by Watson, 1956 OK CR 58, 297 P.2d 569, 1956 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 186 (Okla. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

BRETT, Judge.

This is an original petition for habeas corpus by Richard B. Watson, wherein he alleges he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty by H. C. McLeod, warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. He complains that he was convicted in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, of the crime of second degree burglary on or about September 20, 1954, on a plea of guilty and was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary ; that upon imposition of sentence, the same was suspended. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested and claims the sentence was revoked and he was summarily committed upon said judgment.

No copy of the judgment and sentence herein complained of, is attached to the petition. It has been repeatedly held by this court that where there is no certified copy of the judgment and sentence of the lower court attached to the petition, the petition is insufficient to question the validity of the commitment by which the person is incarcerated in the penitentiary. In re Richardson, Okl.Cr., 283 P.2d 855.

Furthermore, it appears that the trial court had jurisdiction of the defendant’s person, jurisdiction of the subject matter, 21 O.S.1951 § 1435, and authority under the law to pronounce judgment and sentence. 21 O.S.1951 § 1436. Moreover, the trial court had authority under the law to revoke the suspended sentence in a summary manner. 22 O.S.1951 § 992; Stone v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 1, 188 P.2d 875; State v. Humphrey, 85 Okl.Cr. 153, 186 P.2d 664.

Furthermore, it appears that this is an attempt to reach by habeas corpus what should have been sought by appeal. It has been repeatedly held that habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal. Ex parte Vanderburg, 73 Okl.Cr. 21, 117 P.2d 550.

Writ denied.

POWELL, J., concurs. JONES, P. J., not participating.

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

BRETT, Judge.

This is an original petition for habeas corpus by Richard B. Watson, wherein he alleges he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty by H. C. McLeod, warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. He complains that he was convicted in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, of the crime of second degree burglary on or about September 20, 1954, on a plea of guilty and was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary ; that upon imposition of sentence, the same was suspended. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested and claims the sentence was revoked and he was summarily committed upon said judgment.

No copy of the judgment and sentence herein complained of, is attached to the petition. It has been repeatedly held by this court that where there is no certified copy of the judgment and sentence of the lower court attached to the petition, the petition is insufficient to question the validity of the commitment by which the person is incarcerated in the penitentiary. In re Richardson, Okl.Cr., 283 P.2d 855.

Furthermore, it appears that the trial court had jurisdiction of the defendant’s person, jurisdiction of the subject matter, 21 O.S.1951 § 1435, and authority under the law to pronounce judgment and sentence. 21 O.S.1951 § 1436. Moreover, the trial court had authority under the law to revoke the suspended sentence in a summary manner. 22 O.S.1951 § 992; Stone v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 1, 188 P.2d 875; State v. Humphrey, 85 Okl.Cr. 153, 186 P.2d 664.

Furthermore, it appears that this is an attempt to reach by habeas corpus what should have been sought by appeal. It has been repeatedly held that habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal. Ex parte Vanderburg, 73 Okl.Cr. 21, 117 P.2d 550.

Writ denied.

POWELL, J., concurs. JONES, P. J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1956 OK CR 58, 297 P.2d 569, 1956 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-writ-of-habeas-corpus-by-watson-oklacrimapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack