Summary
providing relator could elect to proceed on petition for habeas corpus in county where detained or dismiss that petition and proceed under postconviction remedy act in county where convicted
Summary of this case from Townsend v. StateOpinion
No. 40,835.
October 6, 1967.
Appeal and error — premature appeal — dismissal.
Appeal by James A. Flores from an order of the Washington County District Court, William T. Johnson, Judge, granting his motion to proceed pro se on a petition for habeas corpus but denying his motion for change of venue. Upon motion of respondent, appeal dismissed.
James A. Flores, pro se, for appellant. Douglas M. Head, Attorney General, and Gerard W. Snell, Acting Solicitor General, for respondent, warden of State Prison.
Relator, appearing pro se, served a notice of appeal dated March 21, 1967, from an order of the district court made in response to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The order from which the appeal is taken does not constitute a denial of the petition and, in so far as it is adverse to relator, merely rejects his motion for a change of venue to the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota. The result is that the grounds for reversal urged in this court by relator cannot be considered here for the simple reason that, so far as the record before us discloses, the district court has not acted upon relator's petition.
Upon motion of the State of Minnesota, the appeal is dismissed as being premature. Relator can elect to either proceed in the District Court of Washington County where his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is now pending, or dismiss that petition and proceed under the Postconviction Remedy Act (Minn. St. 590.01 to 590.06) in Hennepin County where he was convicted.
Appeal dismissed.