Jackson v. Raines

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Jackson v. Raines

1960 OK CR 71, 355 P.2d 1013, 1960 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 178

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 21, 1960

DocketA-12898

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1960 OK CR 71 (Jackson v. Raines) 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

Jackson v. Raines, 1960 OK CR 71, 355 P.2d 1013, 1960 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 178 (Okla. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Petitioner, John Jackson, Jr., No. 63183, is presently incarcerated in the State Penitentiary at McAlester by reason of a plea of guilty entered in the district court of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma, on a charge of attempted burglary, second degree.. He was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment.

Petitioner complains of a hold order placed by the officials of Garfield County with the officials of the State Penitentiary at McAlester. He alleges that the evidence obtained against him in Garfield County was obtained illegally; that his 'car was searched without aid of a search war- . rant,. and “what has been called stolen property was found”-. He seeks an order ,, directed to the district- court of Garfield-County ordering the case dismissed. We . assume, therefore, from the petition, that the case is pending in the district court of . Garfield County. If this is true, petitioner would be entitled to a speedy trial. McLeod v. Graham, 6 Okl.Cr. 197, 118 P. 160; State ex rel. Sims v. Caruthers, 1 Okl.Cr. 428, 98 P. 474; Davidson v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 402, 171 P.2d 640. But he does not ask that, or set out whether actually he has been bound over for trial, or even arrested on the Garfield County case. We do infer that a grand larceny case is pending, either in the court of an examining magistrate or in the district court of Garfield County, and petitioner wants such case dismissed because he says the evidence was obtained illegally. That is a matter to be brought up in the case below, and not here, except on appeal.

If the case is pending in the district court of Garfield County, petitioner on proper showing under our holdings in the above cited cases could obtain either a dismissal or a speedy trial, depending upon the facts, and raise the issue now attempted to be raised in an appeal to this Court.

As the matter now stands, under the allegations of the present petition, we are governed by Ex parte Matthews, 85 Okl.Cr. 173, 186 P.2d 840, 842, and other such cases, where it is said:

“Where a prisoner in custody under sentence of conviction seeks to be discharged on habeas corpus, the inquiry is limited to the questions whether the court in which the prisoner was convicted had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the crime charged, and did the court have jurisdiction to render the particular judgment.”

Petition denied.

NIX and. BRETT, JJ., concur.

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

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Petitioner, John Jackson, Jr., No. 63183, is presently incarcerated in the State Penitentiary at McAlester by reason of a plea of guilty entered in the district court of Kingfisher County, Oklahoma, on a charge of attempted burglary, second degree.. He was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment.

Petitioner complains of a hold order placed by the officials of Garfield County with the officials of the State Penitentiary at McAlester. He alleges that the evidence obtained against him in Garfield County was obtained illegally; that his 'car was searched without aid of a search war- . rant,. and “what has been called stolen property was found”-. He seeks an order ,, directed to the district- court of Garfield-County ordering the case dismissed. We . assume, therefore, from the petition, that the case is pending in the district court of . Garfield County. If this is true, petitioner would be entitled to a speedy trial. McLeod v. Graham, 6 Okl.Cr. 197, 118 P. 160; State ex rel. Sims v. Caruthers, 1 Okl.Cr. 428, 98 P. 474; Davidson v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 402, 171 P.2d 640. But he does not ask that, or set out whether actually he has been bound over for trial, or even arrested on the Garfield County case. We do infer that a grand larceny case is pending, either in the court of an examining magistrate or in the district court of Garfield County, and petitioner wants such case dismissed because he says the evidence was obtained illegally. That is a matter to be brought up in the case below, and not here, except on appeal.

If the case is pending in the district court of Garfield County, petitioner on proper showing under our holdings in the above cited cases could obtain either a dismissal or a speedy trial, depending upon the facts, and raise the issue now attempted to be raised in an appeal to this Court.

As the matter now stands, under the allegations of the present petition, we are governed by Ex parte Matthews, 85 Okl.Cr. 173, 186 P.2d 840, 842, and other such cases, where it is said:

“Where a prisoner in custody under sentence of conviction seeks to be discharged on habeas corpus, the inquiry is limited to the questions whether the court in which the prisoner was convicted had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the crime charged, and did the court have jurisdiction to render the particular judgment.”

Petition denied.

NIX and. BRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1960 OK CR 71, 355 P.2d 1013, 1960 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-raines-oklacrimapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack