Morris v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Morris v. State

167 So. 740, 27 Ala. App. 165, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 83

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 16, 1936

Docket6 Div. 966.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 167 So. 740 (Morris v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morris v. State, 167 So. 740, 27 Ala. App. 165, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 83 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Petitioner (appellant) being detained in custody by the Hon. Fred H. McDuff, sheriff of Jefferson county, applied, in the proper way, to the Hon. Robt. J. Wheeler, one of the circuit judges of the Tenth judicial circuit, for the writ of habeas corpus. Code 1928, §§ 4308, 4310. The same issued; respondent sheriff duly complied (Code 1928, §§ 4321, 4322, 4323); and, upon the hearing, the writ was denied and appellant (petitioner) remanded to the custody of said sheriff. Code 1928, § 4328. This appeal follows: Code 1928, § 3238.

It is well settled that “the writ of habeas corpus- * * * cannot be made to answer the purposes of an appeal, certiorari, or writ of error.” Ex parte Bizzell, 112 Ala. 210, 21 So. 371, 372.

Equally as well settled is it that the return (of the sheriff, in this case), not being in any wise controverted, is presumed to be true. Ex parte Hunter, 39 Ala. 560.

There was no testimony offered at the hearing in the instant case. Neither could the circuit judge, nor can we, consider the averments of the petition, though uncontroverted, as admitted. We must look alone to the return to the habeas corpus, in ascertaining the status of the petitioner, and the nature of the charge under which he is held in custody. Ex parte Hunter, supra.

It appears, then, that waiving to one side any and every other question, there was no denial of petitioner’s right to review by appeal or certiorari the judgment about which he complains; nor denial of his right to be admitted to bail pending said review. And,' clearly; the matters he wishes adjudicated here could have been just as well -advanced to the attention of the court by the appropriate one of those methods. Hence the order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, Judge.

Petitioner (appellant) being detained in custody by the Hon. Fred H. McDuff, sheriff of Jefferson county, applied, in the proper way, to the Hon. Robt. J. Wheeler, one of the circuit judges of the Tenth judicial circuit, for the writ of habeas corpus. Code 1928, §§ 4308, 4310. The same issued; respondent sheriff duly complied (Code 1928, §§ 4321, 4322, 4323); and, upon the hearing, the writ was denied and appellant (petitioner) remanded to the custody of said sheriff. Code 1928, § 4328. This appeal follows: Code 1928, § 3238.

It is well settled that “the writ of habeas corpus- * * * cannot be made to answer the purposes of an appeal, certiorari, or writ of error.” Ex parte Bizzell, 112 Ala. 210, 21 So. 371, 372.

Equally as well settled is it that the return (of the sheriff, in this case), not being in any wise controverted, is presumed to be true. Ex parte Hunter, 39 Ala. 560.

There was no testimony offered at the hearing in the instant case. Neither could the circuit judge, nor can we, consider the averments of the petition, though uncontroverted, as admitted. We must look alone to the return to the habeas corpus, in ascertaining the status of the petitioner, and the nature of the charge under which he is held in custody. Ex parte Hunter, supra.

It appears, then, that waiving to one side any and every other question, there was no denial of petitioner’s right to review by appeal or certiorari the judgment about which he complains; nor denial of his right to be admitted to bail pending said review. And,' clearly; the matters he wishes adjudicated here could have been just as well -advanced to the attention of the court by the appropriate one of those methods. Hence the order appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 So. 740, 27 Ala. App. 165, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-state-alactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack