Cassell v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Civ. No. 73-119.
Decision Date | 19 December 1973 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 73-119. |
Citation | 373 F. Supp. 815 |
Parties | Harold Davey CASSELL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF the STATE OF OKLAHOMA and Park J. Anderson, Warden, Oklahoma State Prison, et al., Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Oklahoma |
Harold Davey Cassell, pro se.
Kay Karen Kennedy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondents.
The petitioner has filed herein a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he challenges the validity of the judgment and sentence of the District Court of Pushmataha County, State of Oklahoma, Case No. CRF-70-343. It appears that the petitioner was charged with Burglary. After a trial by jury he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. An appeal was perfected to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Case No. A-16-335 which resulted in affirmance of the trial court. Petitioner claims that he filed an application for post conviction relief under the Oklahoma Post Conviction Procedure Act in the sentencing court and that the Oklahoma courts have been afforded an opportunity to consider all the issues now presented to this court.
Petitioner submits for our consideration the following propositions:
Assuming, as we must since the state has submitted no records to the contrary, the correctness of petitioner's allegations concerning the exhaustion of state remedies, the pleadings examined by the court conclusively show that he is entitled to no relief. His first six propositions are bald conclusions unsupported by any factual allegations whatever. Therefore they are legally insufficient and may be denied without a hearing. Martinez v. United States, 344 F.2d 325 (CA10 1965). Propositions 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 do not even raise federal constitutional questions cognizable in federal habeas corpus. Sufficiency of the evidence cannot be so considered. Sinclair v. Turner, 447 F.2d 1158 (CA10 1971). Trial errors such as the erroneous admission of evidence cannot afford a basis for collateral attack. Carillo v. United States, 332 F.2d 202 (CA10 1964); Alexander v. Daugherty, 286 F.2d 647 (CA10 1961); Schechter v. Waters, 199 F.2d 319 (CA10 1952).
Proposition 7 is wholly without merit. Although it appears that Robert Lee Mantooth may have been a joint participant with petitioner in the same crime, petitioner admits that they were not tried jointly. No two trials are ever exactly the same. The petitions-in-error may have been worded the same in each appeal as alleged by petitioner but this certainly does not make the facts or errors, if any, the same. The court has examined the Opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in Mantooth v. State, Okl.Cr., 489 P.2d 219 (1971). The court reversed the judgment of conviction because a confession unconstitutionally obtained from Mantooth was received in evidence. Obviously the identical error could not have occurred in petitioner's trial. There is no constitutional requirement that those persons accused of the same crime receive the same final disposition of their cases. Allen v....
To continue reading
Request your trial