State ex rel. Orr v. Latshaw
Decision Date | 09 February 1922 |
Citation | 237 S.W. 770,291 Mo. 592 |
Parties | THE STATE ex rel. CAMERON L. ORR, Prosecuting Attorney, v. RALPH S. LATSHAW, Judge of Criminal Court of Jackson County |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Writ granted.
Cameron L. Orr pro se.
(1) When a court undertakes to act in excess of its jurisdiction prohibition is the proper remedy. State ex rel. v Gates, 190 Mo. 553; State ex rel. v. Ross, 122 Mo. 464; State ex rel. v. Weithaupt, 238 Mo. 155; State ex rel. v. Seehorn, 246 Mo. 585; State ex rel. v. Board of Trustees, 268 Mo. 168. (2) The information in the case of State v. Hammer was in proper form and charged a crime in the language of the statute. After judgment and sentence, it cannot be assailed for reasons which might have been good if raised by a motion to quash before judgment. State v. Lawson, 239 Mo. 591; State v. Runzi, 105 Mo.App. 327; State v Brannan, 206 Mo. 640; 16 Corpus Juris, p. 401, 403. (3) After the close of the term of the Criminal Court of Jackson County, at which term judgment was entered and sentence given in the case of State v. Hammer, it was beyond the power of and in excess of respondent's jurisdiction, to set that judgment aside, or interfere with it in any manner. State v. Williams, 147 Mo. 19; 16 C. J. 1326; United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55; Salem v. People, 41 Colo. 317; People v. Wilmot, 254 Ill. 554; State v. Dalton, 109 Tenn. 544; State ex rel. v. Walls, 113 Mo. 42; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 267 Mo. 321.
Ralph S. Latshaw, respondent.
(1) Prohibition will not be granted where adequate relief can be had on appeal or writ of error. Sec. 4099, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. U. Ry. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 100 Mo. 59; State ex rel. Johnson v. Withraw, 108 Mo. 1; State ex rel. Alderson v. Moehlenkamp, 133 Mo. 134; State ex rel. v. Evans, 184 Mo. 632; State ex rel. Holtcomp, 245 Mo. 669; In re Breck, 252 Mo. 327; 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, 256. (2) The effort to invoke prohibition to accomplish this review is an evasion of and in violation of Rule 32 of this court which says that "No original remedial writ except habeas corpus, will be issued by this court in any case wherein adequate relief can be afforded by an appeal or writ of error, or by application for such writ to a court having in that behalf concurrent jurisdiction." Relator's application for writ of prohibition herein again and further violates Rule 32 of this court wherein it is provided that no original remedial writ except habeas corpus will be issued by this court in any case where adequate relief can be had by application for such writ to a court having in that behalf concurrent jurisdiction. "The circuit court shall exercise a superintending control over criminal courts." Sec. 23, Art. VI. Constitution of Missouri; Sec. 2058, R. S. 1919. Under this section of the Constitution, writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition are issuable by the circuit court in the exercise of superintending control over criminal courts in this State. State v. Daniels, 66 Mo. 192. State ex rel. v. Laughlin, 73 Mo. 443; St. Louis County Court v. Sparks, 10 Mo. 117; State v. Daniels, 66 Mo. 192; State ex rel. v. Edwards, 162 Mo. 660; State ex rel. v. Mosmam, 231 Mo. 474. (3) Sec. 4081, R. S. 1919, is declaratory of the common-law writ of coram nobis and relief thereunder does not expire with the trial term. Ex parte Gray, 77 Mo. 160; Cross v. Goult, 131 Mo.App. 585; 5 Ency. Plead. & Prac. 26, 27; Powell v. Gott, 13 Mo. 329; Craig v. Smith, 65 Mo. 536; Latshaw v. McNees, 50 Mo. 384; Ex parte Page, 49 Mo. 291; State ex rel. v. Riley, 219 Mo. 681; Shuck v. Lawton, 249 Mo. 175; State v. Dale, 282 Mo. 669; Gould v. United States, U. S. Adv. Aps. 1920-1921, 311; Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 58 L.Ed. 652.
OPINION
In Banc.
Prohibition.
-- This is an original proceeding for a writ of prohibition. Relator is the Prosecuting Attorney of Jackson County, and respondent is Judge of Division No. 1 of the Criminal Court of Jackson County. The remedy sought is to prevent respondent from arresting and setting aside a judgment and sentence entered in a cause entitled, "State of Missouri v. Wilbur J. Hammer," begun in the aforesaid criminal court. Upon the filing of the petition a preliminary rule was granted as prayed. Respondent made no return, but has entered his appearance, and filed a statement, brief and argument in which it is conceded that relator's statement of the record in the said cause is substantially correct.
Briefly, the facts are as follows: On August 26, 1921, at the April term, 1921, of the Criminal Court of Jackson County, relator filed an information against one Wilbur J. Hammer, charging him with the "detestable and abominable crime against nature." On the same day said Hammer, being arraigned, entered a plea of guilty to the said charge, before respondent, who accepted the said plea and sentenced him to a term of five years in the State Penitentiary. According to the record no motion for new trial or in arrest of judgment seems to have been filed during the said April term, 1921. Thereafter, on the 25th day of October, 1921, after the expiration of the April term, and during the September term, 1921, of said criminal court, the said Hammer filed a motion to set aside the sentence imposed, and to grant him a new trial, which motion is as follows:
On October 26, 1921, the said motion was taken up and submitted to respondent, who made the following order, to-wit:
Relator, alleging that the purpose and intention of respondent is in excess of his jurisdiction, has applied to this court for our writ of prohibition to prevent respondent from assuming jurisdiction and carrying into effect the order so made.
I. Respondent contends that the writ of prohibition will not be granted where adequate relief can be had on appeal or writ of error. As an abstract proposition of law this doctrine is not to be questioned. However, it has no application in the case at bar. Here the paramount issue is the question of respondent's jurisdiction. If he had jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and sentence pronounced against Hammer, then an appeal or writ of error might lie. But the authorities cited by respondent are not pertinent to the real question involved. Section 4099, Revised Statutes 1919, cited by respondent, assumes that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial