Williams v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Williams v. State

1964 OK CR 51, 392 P.2d 65, 1964 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 177

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 6, 1964

DocketA-13502

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1964 OK CR 51 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 1964 OK CR 51, 392 P.2d 65, 1964 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 177 (Okla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

*66 BUSSEY, Judge.

The petitioner, Jessie Williams, Jr., was charged by information in the District Court of Tulsa County, with the crime of Burglary in the First Degree, was tried by a Jury who found him guilty and on the 12th day of June, 1963, Judgment and Sentence, fixing his punishment at Seven (7) Years confinement in the State Penitentiary at Mc-Alester, Oklahoma, was entered in accordance with the verdict of the Jury

No appeal was ever perfected to this Court within the time allowed by law. On the 25th day of March, 1964, petitioner filed in this Court an application for Habeas Corpus, seeking his release from the State Penitentiary at McAlester, on the grounds and for the sole reason that the sentence of Seven (7) Years is “cruel and unusual punishment”. The petitioner urges that the term of Seven (7) Years is the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the crime of Burglary in the First Degree; this assertion is contrary to the statutes of Oklahoma. Title 21 O.S.1961 § 1436, provides :

“Burglary is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary as follows:

“1. Burglary in the first degree for any term not less than seven years nor more than twenty years.

“2. Burglary in the second degree not exceeding seven years and not less than two years. R.L.1910, § 2616.”

Moreover we have repeatedly held that: “The question of whether punishment assessed by the trial court was excessive is a matter to be considered only on appeal from a final judgment, and cannot be inquired into on habeas corpus.” Morgan v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 360 P.2d 733; See also: Hill v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 365 P.2d 173; Perry v. Walters, 97 Okl.Cr. 17, 256 P.2d 1119;

And further in Farris v. State, Okl.Cr. 327 P.2d 706:

“The question as to whether or not the sentence imposed is cruel, excessive, and unjust will not be considered by this court on a writ of habeas corpus, this being a question that could only be reviewed on appeal.”

On the record before us, it appearing that the trial court had jurisdiction of the person, subject-matter and the authority to pronounce the sentence imposed, the relief prayed for should be and the same is hereby denied.

Writ denied.

JOHNSON, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.

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

*66 BUSSEY, Judge.

The petitioner, Jessie Williams, Jr., was charged by information in the District Court of Tulsa County, with the crime of Burglary in the First Degree, was tried by a Jury who found him guilty and on the 12th day of June, 1963, Judgment and Sentence, fixing his punishment at Seven (7) Years confinement in the State Penitentiary at Mc-Alester, Oklahoma, was entered in accordance with the verdict of the Jury

No appeal was ever perfected to this Court within the time allowed by law. On the 25th day of March, 1964, petitioner filed in this Court an application for Habeas Corpus, seeking his release from the State Penitentiary at McAlester, on the grounds and for the sole reason that the sentence of Seven (7) Years is “cruel and unusual punishment”. The petitioner urges that the term of Seven (7) Years is the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the crime of Burglary in the First Degree; this assertion is contrary to the statutes of Oklahoma. Title 21 O.S.1961 § 1436, provides :

“Burglary is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary as follows:

“1. Burglary in the first degree for any term not less than seven years nor more than twenty years.

“2. Burglary in the second degree not exceeding seven years and not less than two years. R.L.1910, § 2616.”

Moreover we have repeatedly held that: “The question of whether punishment assessed by the trial court was excessive is a matter to be considered only on appeal from a final judgment, and cannot be inquired into on habeas corpus.” Morgan v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 360 P.2d 733; See also: Hill v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 365 P.2d 173; Perry v. Walters, 97 Okl.Cr. 17, 256 P.2d 1119;

And further in Farris v. State, Okl.Cr. 327 P.2d 706:

“The question as to whether or not the sentence imposed is cruel, excessive, and unjust will not be considered by this court on a writ of habeas corpus, this being a question that could only be reviewed on appeal.”

On the record before us, it appearing that the trial court had jurisdiction of the person, subject-matter and the authority to pronounce the sentence imposed, the relief prayed for should be and the same is hereby denied.

Writ denied.

JOHNSON, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1964 OK CR 51, 392 P.2d 65, 1964 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-oklacrimapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack