Cochran v. Amrine
| Citation | 113 P.2d 1048,153 Kan. 777 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | 35156. |
| Parties | COCHRAN v. AMRINE, Warden of Kansas State Penitentiary. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court.
While courts are liberal in entertaining petitions in habeas corpus proceedings, questions once fully considered and determined in the absence of changed circumstances should be regarded as settled.
In habeas corpus proceedings, the records of courts are not set aside upon the unsupported statements of a defeated litigant.
Where three was no evidence to support allegations that petitioner had been deprived of due process of law by courts and officers and agents of the state, that his previous petitions for writ of habeas corpus had been dismissed by the courts without recourse to the record upon unfounded assumption that record showed conviction by orderly trial within requirements of due process of law, and that officers and agents of the state were exercising unlawful authority over the petitioner petitioner was not entitled to writ of habeas corpus.
Where notice of appeal from judgment denying writ of habeas corpus was filed in Supreme Court but petition ruled upon was not before reviewing court, appeal was dismissed.
1. While courts are liberal in entertaining petitions in habeas corpus proceedings, questions once fully considered and determined, in the absence of changed circumstances, should be regarded as settled.
2. The records of courts are not set aside upon the unsupported statements of a defeated litigant.
Original habeas corpus proceeding by C. H. Cochran against Milton F Amrine, Warden of the Kansas State Penitentiary, wherein a notice of appeal from a judgment of the district court denying a writ of habeas corpus was filed.
Writ denied and notice of appeal dismissed.
C. H Cochran, pro se.
Jay S Parker, Atty. Gen., and Jay Kyle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus. The petitioner alleges he is an inmate of our state penitentiary, where he is being held under a commitment issued May 29, 1933, out of the district court of Sumner county, authorizing his imprisonment for life, and that the commitment is void for the following reasons: The record shows (1) jurisdiction of the court to issue the commitment "was procured thru the reckless contrivance in the pretense of a trial which in and by itself, deprived your petitioner of every right secured to him by the State and Federal Constitution and precluded *** 'Due Process of Law."' (2) That the court went beyond the bounds of judicial discretion in overruling his motion without a hearing. (3) That the duly authorized officers unlawfully suppressed his appeal documents and deprived him of his lawful rights of appeal. (4) That after his imprisonment the then warden and other officers of the prison suppressed and refused to permit him to mail documents pertaining to an appeal and to habeas corpus. That the records will show (1) that he has consistently been deprived of due process of law by the courts and the officers and agents of the state; (2) that his previous petitions have been dismissed by the courts of the state, without recourse to the record, upon the unfounded assumption the record shows his conviction by an orderly trial within the requirements of due process of law, and (3) that the officers and agents of the state are exercising unlawful authority over your petitioner, obtained by methods contrary to due process of law.
All these allegations are made in the most general terms, void of any specifically alleged, controvertible facts; yet, in order that petitioner might not be deprived of any of his rights, we waived our rules respecting a deposit for costs and the printing of abstract and brief, allowed the petition to be filed, and directed respondent to file a return. Respondent has prepared and filed his return, which includes pertinent records of the trial, and a copy thereof was served upon the petitioner, who now complains that the records have been brought before the court; also, briefs have been filed by both parties.
Except...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorsey v. Gill
...writ, stating that `the records of courts are not set aside upon the unsupported statements of a defeated litigant.' Cochran v. Amrine, 153 Kan. 777, 113 P.2d 1048, 1049. We accept the court's conclusion that the record, showing that Cochran was represented by counsel throughout, and reveal......
-
Huffman v. Alexander
...143, 69 P.2d 1069; Linn County v. Rozelle, 177 Or. 245, 282, 162 P.2d 150; State v. Lillie, supra, 172 Or. 194, 139 P.2d 576; Cochran v. Amrine, 153 Kan. 777, 113 [197 Or. 318] P.2d 1048; Lewis v. State, 153 Miss. 759, 121 So. 493; Commonwealth ex rel. Chambers v. Claudy, 171 Pa.Super. 115,......
-
Miller v. Hudspeth
...district judge told him. The records of courts are not set aside upon the unsupported statements of a defeated litigant. Cochran v. Amrine, 153 Kan. 777, 113 P.2d 1048. attorney, F. B. Dodds of Lawrence, who entered the case on behalf of petitioner after the commitment to the penitentiary, ......
-
Price v. Johnston
...We were reversed, 316 U.S. 649, 62 S.Ct. 1301, 86 L. Ed. 1732, on the authority of Waley v. Johnston, supra. In the case Cochran v. Amrine, 153 Kan. 777, 113 P.2d 1048, a habeas corpus proceeding, the Kansas supreme court states, at page 1049, that Cochran unsuccessfully had filed four peti......