State Ex Rel. Pontius v. Rigg

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State Ex Rel. Pontius v. Rigg

86 N.W.2d 726, 251 Minn. 164, 1957 Minn. LEXIS 680

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 6, 1957

Docket37,402

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 86 N.W.2d 726 (State Ex Rel. Pontius v. Rigg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Pontius v. Rigg, 86 N.W.2d 726, 251 Minn. 164, 1957 Minn. LEXIS 680 (Mich. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Knutson, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Washington County denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the petition fails to state any ground upon which it could be granted.

The petition states as grounds for the writ the following:

“(1) I have been denied by [sic] constitutional rights, Article 1, section 7, of Minnesota constitution, 7th amendment of the United States Constitution.

“(2) I was falsely charged with first degree grand larceny, and four prior convictions, I was fraudgently [sic] sentenced under M. S. A. 610.29.

“(3) I have already served more than the maximum of the original charge, had I been legally guilty and sentenced for such a crime.”

Relator wholly fails to state any facts upon which the writ could be issued. The grounds stated are purely conclusions without the allega *165 tion of any factual basis. Furthermore, no attempt has been made to comply with M. S. A. 589.04(5). While the brief filed by relator contains some statements pertaining to the validity of the judgment under which relator was committed, the brief cannot take the place of the petition, even if it could be said that there are statements of fact in the brief which could apply to a proceeding in habeas corpus. The arguments in the brief are directed toward matters which should have been raised on a review of the conviction, not in a habeas corpus proceeding. As we said in State ex rel. Sherin v. Goss, 73 Minn. 126, 127, 75 N. W. 1132:

“Habeas corpus, being a writ of right, may not be refused to any one who shows a prima facie case entitling him to be discharged; but it does not follow that a person is entitled to the writ merely by asking for it, without making any showing that he is unlawfully deprived of his liberty. If, on his own showing, he is lawfully imprisoned, the writ would, of course, be denied. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2; Williamson’s Case, 26 Pa. St. 1.

“On the same principle, the writ should be denied where he makes no affirmative showing that he is entitled to his discharge. The petition should be construed somewhat liberally, in favor of the liberty of the citizen, but it should place before the court or judge facts enough to permit an intelligent judgment to be formed of the case. The petition should show in what the illegality consists, and this should be done by stating facts, as contradistinguished from mere conclusions of law.”

The petition clearly is insufficient to present anything for our consideration. The appeal must be and is dismissed.

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

Knutson, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Washington County denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the petition fails to state any ground upon which it could be granted.

The petition states as grounds for the writ the following:

“(1) I have been denied by [sic] constitutional rights, Article 1, section 7, of Minnesota constitution, 7th amendment of the United States Constitution.

“(2) I was falsely charged with first degree grand larceny, and four prior convictions, I was fraudgently [sic] sentenced under M. S. A. 610.29.

“(3) I have already served more than the maximum of the original charge, had I been legally guilty and sentenced for such a crime.”

Relator wholly fails to state any facts upon which the writ could be issued. The grounds stated are purely conclusions without the allega *165 tion of any factual basis. Furthermore, no attempt has been made to comply with M. S. A. 589.04(5). While the brief filed by relator contains some statements pertaining to the validity of the judgment under which relator was committed, the brief cannot take the place of the petition, even if it could be said that there are statements of fact in the brief which could apply to a proceeding in habeas corpus. The arguments in the brief are directed toward matters which should have been raised on a review of the conviction, not in a habeas corpus proceeding. As we said in State ex rel. Sherin v. Goss, 73 Minn. 126, 127, 75 N. W. 1132:

“Habeas corpus, being a writ of right, may not be refused to any one who shows a prima facie case entitling him to be discharged; but it does not follow that a person is entitled to the writ merely by asking for it, without making any showing that he is unlawfully deprived of his liberty. If, on his own showing, he is lawfully imprisoned, the writ would, of course, be denied. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2; Williamson’s Case, 26 Pa. St. 1.

“On the same principle, the writ should be denied where he makes no affirmative showing that he is entitled to his discharge. The petition should be construed somewhat liberally, in favor of the liberty of the citizen, but it should place before the court or judge facts enough to permit an intelligent judgment to be formed of the case. The petition should show in what the illegality consists, and this should be done by stating facts, as contradistinguished from mere conclusions of law.”

The petition clearly is insufficient to present anything for our consideration. The appeal must be and is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.W.2d 726, 251 Minn. 164, 1957 Minn. LEXIS 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-pontius-v-rigg-minn-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack