Ex Parte Harlan Arnett

Full title: Ex parte HARLAN ARNETT

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma

Date published: Mar 24, 1943

135 P.2d 507 (Okla. Crim. App. 1943)

135 P.2d 507

Opinion

No. A-10379.

March 24, 1943.

(Syllabus.)

1. Habeas Corpus — Writ May not Be Used as Substitute for Appeal. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to perform the office of a writ of error on appeal, but is limited to cases in which the judgment and sentence of the court attacked is clearly void.

2. Same — Petition Insufficient on Its Face to Justify Release From Custody. Where copy of judgment and sentence is not attached to petition, and there is nothing from which this court may ascertain the nature of the crime, the number of years sentenced, nor the court from which petitioner was committed, it is insufficient upon its face to entitle petitioner to release from custody.

Original habeas corpus proceeding by Harlan Arnett to secure release from the State Penitentiary. Writ denied.

Harlan Arnett, in pro. per.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

JONES, P. J.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus by one Harlan Arnett to secure his release from confinement in the State Penitentiary at McAlester.

No copy of the judgment and sentence pronounced against petitioner is attached to his petition and the petition does not recite the number of years for which he stands committed, the crime for which he was convicted, nor the court from which he was sentenced. It merely alleges in general terms that the petitioner's conviction was unlawful because he had once been placed in jeopardy, and, secondly, that the court kept the jury together an unreasonable length of time in order to secure a verdict of guilty.

In Ex parte Shockley, 75 Okla. Cr. 263, 130 P.2d 331, this court held:

"The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to perform the office of a writ of error on appeal, but is limited to cases in which the judgment and sentence of the court attacked is clearly void."

See, also, Ex parte Tollison, 73 Okla. Cr. 38, 117 P.2d 549.

There are no sufficient facts stated in the petition which would justify this court in assuming jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The writ of habeas corpus is denied.

BAREFOOT and DOYLE, JJ., concur.