Montague v. Conte
This text of 477 P.2d 21 (Montague v. Conte) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Robert Montague, convicted on a charge of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, seeks to challenge the legality of an instruction by writ of habeas corpus.
The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of petitioner’s restraint and to determine whether his constitutional right to due process in law have been violated. Pettit v. Rhay, 62 Wn.2d 515, 518, 383 P.2d 889 (1963). Since the propriety of an instruction should be challenged by appeal, petitioner’s application is not within the scope of the habeas corpus remedy. Massey v. Rhay, 76 Wn.2d 78, 455 P.2d 367 (1969).
The judgment and sentence under which petitioner is restrained is valid on its face. Consequently, the application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
477 P.2d 21, 3 Wash. App. 687, 1970 Wash. App. LEXIS 1015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montague-v-conte-washctapp-1970.