Shelton v. State

1963 OK CR 41, 381 P.2d 324, 1963 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 144
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedApril 10, 1963
DocketA-13338
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 1963 OK CR 41 (Shelton v. State) 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
Shelton v. State, 1963 OK CR 41, 381 P.2d 324, 1963 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 144 (Okla. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

NIX, Judge.

This is an original proceeding for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the petitioner, Thomas Lee Shelton, who was convicted in the District Court of Noble County, Oklahoma for the crime of Manslaughter and was sentenced to 99 years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.

Petitioner contends that he was forced to trial with an attorney who lacked in sympathy and interest because of prejudice. This is not a question to be raised on Habeas Corpus and this Court held in the case of Harvey v. Raines, 368 P.2d 258:

“Writ of habeas corpus cannot be invoked for the purpose of reviewing the action of courts of record where the court acted within its jurisdiction, nor can the writ of habeas corpus be used for the purpose of correcting irregularities or errors, or as a substitute for an appeal.”

See also, In re Hood, Okl.Cr., 375 P.2d 163.

*325 Petitioner has filed Only an unverified petition with no documents attached to enlighten the court of factual accounts.

In habeas corpus proceeding, burden is upon petitioner to prove the grounds upon which he relies for his release and unsupported statements do not meet requirements of proof. Lavender v. McLeod, Okl.Cr., 325 P.2d 1080.

This Court further held in Re Salisbury, 363 P.2d 380:

“Where inmate of penitentiary wishes to challenge judgment and sentence pronounced against him, he should attach to his petition for writ of habeas corpus a certified copy of the information, and a certified copy of such judgment and sentence.
J}« * * * *
“In habeas corpus proceeding, prisoner who failed to attach certified copy of information, and of judgment and sentence, did not make out a prima facie case for release from confinement in penitentiary.”

For the above reasons, the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is accordingly denied.

BUSSEY, P. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.

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

Related

Stewart v. State
1999 OK CR 9 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1999)
Twyman v. Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Board
1992 OK CR 53 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1992)
Sissney v. State
1990 OK CR 26 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1990)
Mahler v. State
1989 OK CR 82 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1989)
Barnett v. State
1968 OK CR 192 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1968)
Goodwin v. Page
1968 OK CR 148 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1968)
Dentis v. Page
1965 OK CR 87 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1965)
Hobert v. State
1965 OK CR 38 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1965)
In re Talley
1964 OK CR 60 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1964)
Bryant v. State
1964 OK CR 50 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1964)
Application of Karr
1963 OK CR 73 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1963 OK CR 41, 381 P.2d 324, 1963 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelton-v-state-oklacrimapp-1963.