Germany v. Hudspeth, 39058
| Decision Date | 05 February 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 39058,39058 |
| Citation | 252 P.2d 858,174 Kan. 1 |
| Parties | GERMANY v. HUDSPETH, Warden. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The record examined in a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus, and held, that the petitioner is not entitled to the writ.
Elisha Scott, Sr., of Topeka, argued the cause, and Charles S. Scott, and John J. Scott, both of Topeka, were with him on the briefs, for the petitioner.
William P. Timmerman, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and Harold R. Fatzer, Atty. Gen., was with him on the briefs, for the respondent.
This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus.
Petitioner is confined in the state penitentiary pursuant to a judgment and sentence of death by hanging rendered by the district court of Wyandotte county for commission of the crime of murder in the first degree. Prior to being sentenced he was tried and found guilty by a jury. Thereafter he took an appeal to this court which resulted in an affirmance of the judgment and sentence of the district court. State v. Germany, 173 Kan. 214, 245 P.2d 981. Subsequently, and on October 13, 1952, his petition for a writ of certiorari to this court was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States. Germany, Petitioner, v. Hudspeth, Warden, 344 U.S. 845, 73 S.Ct. 62, 97 L.Ed. ----. Throughout all proceedings he was represented by competent counsel of his own choosing.
The facts and circumstances leading up to and resulting in petitioner's conviction and present incarceration are fully set forth and reported in State v. Germany, supra. So are this court's reasons for affirmance of the judgment of conviction. Nothing is to be gained by repeating what already appears in our reports. Therefore, by reference, we make what is said in the decision of that case respecting the matters to which we have just referred a part of this opinion, as fully and completely as if they were set forth at length herein.
Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, filed in this court within a short time after his petition for a writ of certiorari had been denied, was promptly challenged by the respondent on the ground such pleading failed to state facts sufficient to grant the relief prayed for.
We have carefully examined the petition and in doing so have taken judicial notice of everything that was presented, considered, and determined by this court in State v. Germany, supra. When reviewed in that manner it appears from the allegations of the petition,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v. Hand
...Kan. 228, 194 P.2d 498; State v. Miller, 169 Kan. 1, 9, 217 P.2d 287; State v. Lammers, 171 Kan. 668, 672, 237 P.2d 410; Germany v. Hudspeth, 174 Kan. 1, 252 P.2d 858; State v. Andrews, supra; State v. Wilson, 187 Kan. 486, 357 P.2d 823; State v. Hickock & Smith, We now turn to the merits o......
-
Grantham v. City of Topeka
...159 P. 339; Foster v. Capital Gas and Electric Co. [125 Kan. 574, 265 P. 81], supra; Smith v. Kansas City, 158 Kan. 213, 146 P.2d 660.' (174 Kan. 1. c. 267, 255 P.2d 1. c. The standard fixed by law concerning a city's duty to maintain its streets may be stated thusly: A city rests under the......
-
In re Easterberg
...is not a substitute for an appeal is elementary." State v. Shores , 187 Kan. 492, 493, 357 P.2d 798 (1960) ; see Germany v. Hudspeth , 174 Kan. 1, 2, 252 P.2d 858 (1953) ("this court is committed to the rule that a habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for appellate review"); see als......
-
Germany v. Hudspeth
...appealed from is, therefore, affirmed. 1 See State v. Germany, 173 Kan. 214, 245 P.2d 981. 2 See 344 U.S. 845, 73 S.Ct. 62. 3 See, 174 Kan. 1, 252 P.2d 858. 4 Bolln v. Nebraska, 176 U.S. 83, 20 S. Ct. 287, 44 L.Ed. 382; Spies v. Ilinois, 123 U.S. 131, 8 S.Ct. 22, 31 L.Ed. 80; Jack v. Kansas......