Opinion
No. 30229.
November 7, 1932. Suggestion of Error Overruled, December 5, 1932.
1. HABEAS CORPUS.
Habeas corpus cannot perform functions of writ of error or appeal (Code 1930, section 1914).
2. HABEAS CORPUS.
Aggrieved party may resort to habeas corpus to review judgment or proceedings void on their face and subject to collateral attack (Code 1930, section 1914).
3. HABEAS CORPUS.
Adverse judgment of county court, on motion in arrest of judgment, in criminal case, on ground verdict, judgment, and sentence were void for uncertainty, could be reviewed only on appeal, and not by habeas corpus (Code 1930, section 1914).
APPEAL from circuit court of Lee county. HON. THOS. H. JOHNSTON, Judge.
Bolton Monaghan, of Tupelo, for appellant.
The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention, by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto, except in cases expressly excepted.
Miss. Code 1930, sec. 1914.
The right of petitioner in his case after his motion for an arrest of judgment in the county court was overruled was an appeal to the circuit court of Lee County. He did not have the right to invoke habeas corpus.
State v. Boyd, 70 So. 692; 15 Am. Eng. Ency. Law 172, 173.
Even though there was error in the judgment the circuit judge did not have the power to discharge the defendant.
Section 1916, Miss. Code 1930.
The appellee having failed to appeal to the circuit court upon the overruling of his motion in arrest of judgment is estopped, and he could not invoke habeas corpus.
Ex parte Gibson, 12 So. 209.
When a court has jurisdiction by law of the offense charged, and of the party who is so charged its judgments are not nullities which can be collaterally attacked. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to perform the functions of a writ of error.
Re Edward Eckhart, 41 U.S. (L.Ed.) 1085; J. Wesley Glasgow v. William H. Moyer, Warden of the U.S. Penitentiary, 56 U.S. (L.Ed.) 1147. Mitchell Mitchell, of Tupelo, for appellee.
The granting of writs of habeas corpus and the relief available under said writ is governed by Section 1914 of the Mississippi Code of 1930 which in substance states that the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto, except in cases expressly excepted.
While mere irregularities or errors in a verdict will not render a verdict void or a judgment entered thereon void, yet where the verdict is absolutely void, any judgment entered thereon is also void and in this lay the distinction when a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is proper and the prayer for relief thereunder is to be granted.
The law is well settled in these matters that where there are joint defendants who were tried jointly or together, upon a certain charge, a verdict finding defendant (in the singular) guilty is void for uncertainty.
16 C.J. (C.L.), par. 2589, p. 1104; People v. Sepulveda, 59 Cal. 342; Favor v. State, 54 Ga. 249; State v. Weeks, 34 P. 1095; Brannigan v. People, 24 P. 767.
Inasmuch therefore, under the above authorities the verdict in this case, is void, then, of course, the judgment must necessarily be void and when a party or parties are confined or detained by virtue of a void judgment, such parties are illegally deprived of their liberty and are entitled to relief through the writ of habeas corpus and so hold the authorities.
29 Corpus Juris, Habeas Corpus, par. 46, p. 51.
Ex parte Estate, 205 Ala. 677; Stevens v. McClaughry, 207 Fed. 18; 51 L.R.A. 390; Scott v. State, 70 Miss. 247; Ex parte Borden, 92 Miss. 14.
As to the final contention of counsel for appellant that the appellee should have appealed from the judgment, such being the remedy open to him, we simply reply that this is the first instance that we have ever been able to find where it is contended that a party must appeal from a void judgment. It has been our understanding from our study of the law that an appeal should only be prosecuted from a valid judgment, because, if there is no valid judgment, there is nothing upon which to base an appeal. We feel that this is sufficient answer to the contention of counsel for appellant in this regard.
Appellee and one Boss Payne were tried in the county court upon a joint charge against them for a misdemeanor. The defendants each entered a plea of not guilty and were thereupon jointly put to trial before a jury. Upon the completion of the testimony and the arguments, and having received the instructions of the court, the jury presently returned into open court the following verdict: "We the jury find the defendant guilty as charged." Observing that the verdict was in the singular, when two defendants had been jointly tried, appellee moved in the county court in arrest of judgment, which motion was by the county judge overruled, and thereupon a judgment, reciting the verdict, was entered by the county court upon the verdict, imposing a fine upon each of the said defendants therein.
No appeal was prosecuted to the circuit court, but when the sheriff took appellee in custody to enforce the sentence aforesaid, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was presented by appellee, which was soon thereafter heard by the circuit judge, who entered an order discharging appellee from custody on the ground that the verdict in question was so uncertain as to be void, and that the judgment and sentence of the county court based thereon was likewise void.
The statute provides in broad terms, section 1914, Code 1930, that "the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty," and other provisions of the statutes impose heavy penalties on a judge who willfully refuses to grant or try the writ. On the other hand, "the authorities are uniform and very numerous in holding that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to perform the functions of a writ of error or an appeal." State v. Boyd, 110 Miss. 565, 574, 70 So. 692, 693. Under the operation of the two rules of law, above quoted, many nice questions have arisen as to how closely a party is confined to an appeal as an exclusive remedy when an appeal is or has been available to him in his case, with the result that the general declaration is found to be often repeated that when the judgment or the proceedings are void on their face, so as to be subject to collateral attack, then the aggrieved party may resort to habeas corpus, and is not confined to appeal. Some of the authorities and some of our own cases are as follows: 12 R.C.L. 1186, 1196, 1207, 1240; 29 C.J. 48, 51; Scott v. State, 70 Miss. 247, 11 So. 657, 35 Am. St. Rep. 649; Ex parte Burden, 92 Miss. 14, 45 So. 1, 131 Am. St. Rep. 511; State v. Chambliss, 142 Miss. 275, 107 So. 200; Lewis v. State, 153 Miss. 767, 121 So. 493.
Appellee plants his petition upon the ground of exception last stated, namely, that the verdict was void for uncertainty, that the judgment and sentence based thereon is likewise void, that the invalidity appears upon the face of the judgment itself, and hence is subject to a collateral attack on habeas corpus. Without attempting to reconcile what appears to be some slight variations in the written opinions, even in our own state, we will confine the decision in this case strictly to the case as here before us. We will therefore concede, for the purposes of this case, although we do not now so decide, that the verdict, judgment, and sentence in this case are void for uncertainty, and this on the face of the record, and further that if appellee had stood without further to say in the county court after the return of the said verdict and had made no motion in arrest of judgment, he could have resorted to the remedy of habeas corpus — nevertheless conceding all the foregoing, we are of opinion that where appellee has moved in arrest of judgment and thereby expressly called upon the county court to consider and adjudge the point whether the verdict was void, the point thus raised being one which was within the jurisdiction of the county court to adjudge and determine, an adverse judgment by the county court can be reviewed only on appeal, and not by habeas corpus.
Reversed, and petition dismissed.