The court foreclosed a similar claim in Isbell v. State, 42 Ala. App. 498, 169 So.2d 27 (1964). In Thomas v. State, 40 Ala. App. 697, 122 So.2d 535 (1960), the court reviewed the trial court's striking the petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus wherein the petitioner contested the legality of his detention pursuant to sentences for his robbery convictions, which were based upon his pleas of guilty. After recognizing that the conviction of robbery, a capital offense, puts the fixing of punishment with a jury, the court noted that, had this issue been raised by error or appeal, the judgments would have been reversed. The court then continued, as follows:

COLEMAN, Justice. Affirmed on authority of Ex parte Tanner, 219 Ala. 7, 121 So. 423; Thomas v. State, 40 Ala. App. 697, 122 So.2d 535. Affirmed.

He pled guilty. The judge rather than the jury fixed punishment. "We were confronted with a like claim in Thomas v. State, 40 Ala. App. 697, 122 So.2d 535, a habeas corpus appeal. There we refused to consider due process had been breached in a clear case of invited error. "Here, too, we consider the judgment should be

Habeas corpus will lie where the invalidity of the prior court judgment shows on its face some fundamental illegality. Thomas v. State, 40 Ala. App. 697, 122 So.2d 535 (1960). If the invalidity of a judgment does not show on the face of the record proper (the indictment, judgment, etc.), but must be established by parol testimony, habeas corpus will not lie, but instead the common writ of error coram nobis is the remedy.

Habeas corpus does not serve the office of appeal. Nor can the writ be used to correct errors in a judgment if the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment is without question. Hable v. State, 41 Ala. App. 398, 132 So.2d 271; Thomas v. State, 40 Ala. App. 697, 122 So.2d 535; McIntyre v. State, 41 Ala. App. 486, 139 So.2d 618; Edwards v. State, 274 Ala. 561, 150 So.2d 709. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court discharging the writ is due to be and is

Ex parte Tanner, 219 Ala. 7, 121 So. 423. A patently erroneous sentence merely voidable is reviewable otherwise. See Ex parte Jenkins, 38 Ala. App. 117, 76 So.2d 858; Thomas v. State, 40 Ala. App. 697, 122 So.2d 535. In Isbell v. State, 42 Ala. App. 498, 169 So.2d 27, a coram nobis appeal, we affirmed though the punishment which led to original sentence was fixed by the judge on a plea of guilty to robbery.

Ex parte Tanner, 219 Ala. 7, 121 So. 423. A patently erroneous sentence merely voidable is reviewable otherwise. See Ex parte Jenkins, 38 Ala. App. 117, 76 So.2d 858; Thomas v. State, 40 Ala. App. 697, 122 So.2d 535. In Isbell v. State, 42 Ala. App. 498, 169 So.2d 27, a coram nobis appeal, we affirmed though the punishment which led to original sentence was fixed by the judge on a plea of guilty to robbery.

"That appellant's punishment was fixed by the court instead of by a jury (Code 1940, T. 14, Sec. 415), is a procedural error which cannot be raised in a coram nobis proceeding. Thomas v. State, 40 Ala. App. 697, 122 So.2d 535; Isbell v. State, 42 Ala. App. 498, 169 So.2d 27."

Ex parte Tanner, 219 Ala. 7, 121 So. 423. A patently erroneous sentence merely voidable is reviewable otherwise. See Ex parte Jenkins, 38 Ala. App. 117, 76 So.2d 858; Thomas v. State, 40 Ala. App. 697, 122 So.2d 535. In Isbell v. State, 42 Ala. App. 498, 169 So.2d 27, a coram nobis appeal, we affirmed though the punishment which led to original sentence was fixed by the judge on a plea of guilty to robbery.

Ex parte Tanner, 219 Ala. 7, 121 So. 423. A patently erroneous sentence merely voidable is reviewable otherwise. See Ex parte Jenkins, 38 Ala. App. 117, 76 So.2d 858; Thomas v. State, 40 Ala. App. 697, 122 So.2d 535. In Isbell v. State, 42 Ala. App. 498, 169 So.2d 27, a coram nobis appeal, we affirmed though the punishment which led to original sentence was fixed by the judge on a plea of guilty to robbery.