Ex Parte Scharnhaus

1 Citing case

  1. Ex Parte Ervin

    266 P.2d 984 (Okla. Crim. App. 1954)   Cited 5 times

    Expressed in other words, we have from the beginning said that the power of the Criminal Court of Appeals to modify a sentence is limited to appealed cases, and cannot be exercised in an original habeas corpus action. Ex parte Cavers, 79 Okla. Cr. 262, 154 P.2d 106; Ex parte Walker, 84 Okla. Cr. 190, 180 P.2d 670, 671; Ex parte Scharnhaus, 87 Okla. Cr. 433, 198 P.2d 1009; Ex parte Moore, 88 Okla. Cr. 105, 200 P.2d 454. Of course if the defendant had soon after he was incarcerated in the penitentiary sought a writ of habeas corpus, this court could have considered the question of whether the trial court properly had jurisdiction of the case, or whether or not the judgment was void, and if it should have so been determined might have sent the case back to the trial court for new trial, see In re Stevens, 81 Okla. Cr. 65, 160 P.2d 415, where the trial court, cognizant of the circumstances called to the attention of this court, might have granted the relief to which the defendant in all justice would seem entitled, and failing, on appeal this court could have modified any sentence so as to effect the relief. But at this late date such course would be useless, as the sentence as it stands would expire before relief could be afforded.