Ex parte Hibbs, Okla. Cr. 322 P.2d 654. The rule of this Court is that where an application for writ of habeas corpus has been denied, this Court will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for a writ based on the same grounds and the same facts, or any other grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, whether presented then or not. Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. Cr. 115, 129 P.2d 88; Ex parte Gray, 74 Okla. Cr. 200, 124 P.2d 430; Ex parte Hinley, 84 Okla. Cr. 437, 183 P.2d 602; Ex parte O'Hara, 93 Okla. Cr. 186, 226 P.2d 327; Ex parte Tidwell, Okla. Cr. 317 P.2d 1119. For the reasons above stated, the motion of the Attorney General is sustained, and the cause is dismissed.

fact that thereafter petitioner filed his application for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, and the court there discharged the writ and denied petitioner any relief; that thereafter the petitioner certified his appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth District, and on April 11, 1950, such court confirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, O'Hara v. Burford, Warden, 181 F.2d 96; and that subsequent thereto this petitioner filed an application for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, and on June 5, 1950, that court denied the application, O'Hara v. Burford, Warden, 339 U.S. 990, 70 S.Ct. 1016, 94 L.Ed. ___. This court has repeatedly held that it will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus on the same grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, whether then presented or not. Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. Cr. 115, 129 P.2d 88; Ex parte Hinley, 84 Okla. Cr. 437, 183 P.2d 602; Ex parte Hinley, 92 Okla. Cr. 85, 220 P.2d 844; Ex parte Peaker, 87 Okla. Cr. 139, 194 P.2d 893; Peaker v. Oklahoma, 335 U.S. 909, 69 S.Ct. 409, 93 L.Ed. 442. For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed herein on April 14, 1950 and the questions raised in the three previous occasions being identical in substance the same as the one herewith presented the petitioner wholly fails to state grounds sufficient to entitle the petitioner to relief by habeas corpus. This court has repeatedly held that it will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus on the same grounds or facts existing when the first application was made whether then presented or not. Ex parte Gray, 74 Okla. Cr. 200, 124 P.2d 430; Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. 115, 129 P.2d 88; Denton v. Hunt, Warden, 79 Okla. Cr. 166, 152 P.2d 698; Ex parte Edwards, 79 Okla. Cr. 259, 154 P.2d 105. Such being the record here confronting us it is unnecessary to again discuss the issues raised in this and the prior petitions for writs of habeas corpus presented by this petitioner. As has heretofore been said, the situation being such as it is "the only relief for this petitioner would be through an application for pardon or parole, before the State Pardon and Parole Board". Ex parte Hinley, 84 Okla. Cr. 437, 183 P.2d 603; Ex parte Hinley, 88 Okla. Cr. 81, 199 P.2d 613. For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in accordingly denied.

The petitioner herein has on two prior occasions filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this court, one of which was denied on January 17, 1945 (Ex parte Hinley, 79 Okla. Cr. 382, 155 P.2d 265); and the other denied on July 30, 1947 (Ex parte Hinley, 84 Okla. Cr. 437, 183 P.2d 602). It is a rule of this court that where the Criminal Court of Appeals has denied an application for writ of habeas corpus, it will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for such writ on the same grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, whether then presented or not. Ex parte Gray, 74 Okla. Cr. 200, 124 P.2d 430; Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. Cr. 115, 129 P.2d 88; Denton v. Hunt, Warden, 79 Okla. Cr. 166, 152 P.2d 698; Ex parte Edwards, 79 Okla. Cr. 259, 154 P.2d 105. The same questions raised in the two previous cases are presented here, and it is unnecessary to again discuss them.

Since no appeal will lie from the action of district court in refusing to issue the writ of habeas corpus on the petition of the prisoner, W. S. Peaker, we have docketed the pleading which he filed herein as an original action to secure a writ of habeas corpus in this court. In Ex parte Berrie v. State, 75 Okla. Cr. 115, 129 P.2d 88, this court stated in the syllabus: "Where Criminal Court of Appeals has denied application for writ of habeas corpus, it will not ordinarily entertain subsequent application for such writ on same grounds and facts or any other ground or facts existing when first application was made, whether presented then or not."

See former opinion, In re Cavers, 79 Okla. Cr. 262, 154 P.2d 106. The allegations of the petition in the instant case are substantially the same as those heretofore considered in the former opinion. It is the rule of the court that where the Criminal Court of Appeals has denied an application for writ of habeas corpus, it will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for such writ on the same grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, whether then presented or not. Ex parte Gray, 74 Okla. Cr. 200, 124 P.2d 430; Ex parte Davis, 74 Okla. Cr. 75, 123 P.2d 300; Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. Cr. 115, 129 P.2d 88; Denton v. Hunt, 79 Okla. Cr. 166, 152 P.2d 698; In re Edwards, 79 Okla. Cr. 259, 154 P.2d 105. The writ of habeas corpus is denied.

78 Okla. Cr. 213, 146 P.2d 311. It is the rule of this court that where the Criminal Court of Appeals has denied an application for writ of habeas corpus, it will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for such writ on the same grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, whether then presented or not. Ex parte Gray, 74 Okla. Cr. 200, 124 P.2d 430; Ex parte Davis, 74 Okla. Cr. 75, 123 P.2d 300; Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. Cr. 115, 129 P.2d 88; Denton v. Hunt, 79 Okla. Cr. 166, 152 P.2d 698. This petition is identical with the former petition filed by this petitioner, except that it is alleged in this petition that the letter purported to have been written by one E. M. Roach, which allegedly was the basis for the revocation of the parole of petitioner, was a false and forged letter.

There is another reason why the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied. It is the rule of this court that where the Criminal Court of Appeals has denied an application for writ of habeas corpus, it will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for such writ on the same grounds and facts or any other grounds or facts existing when the first application was made whether then presented or not. In re Arthur, 75 Okla. Cr. 315, 131 P.2d 135; Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. Cr. 115, 129 P.2d 88; Ex parte Davis, 74 Okla. Cr. 75, 123 P.2d 300; Ex parte Gray, 74 Okla. Cr. 200, 124 P.2d 430. In the case of Ex parte Denton, 69 Okla. Cr. 204, 101 P.2d 276, this same petitioner presented his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and it was denied.

A demurrer to the petition was interposed on behalf of respondent. The rule of this court is that where an application for writ of habeas corpus has been denied, this court will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for a writ based on the same grounds and the same facts, or any other grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, whether presented then or not. Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. Cr. 115, 129 P.2d 88; Ex parte Arthur, 75 Okla. Cr. 315, 131 P.2d 135. For the reasons above stated, the demurrer to the petition is sustained and the cause is dismissed.

Otherwise the filing of the same would have been denied. The rule of this court is that where a writ of habeas corpus has been denied, this court will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for a writ based upon the same grounds and the same facts, or any other grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, whether presented then or not. Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. Cr. 115, 129 P.2d 88, and Ex parte Arthur, 75 Okla. Cr. 315, 131 P.2d 135. The demurrer of the Attorney General on behalf of the warden of the penitentiary is, therefore, sustained. DOYLE and JONES, JJ., concur.