Dutton, Application of

Decision Date18 December 1963
Docket NumberNo. 7215,7215
Citation95 Ariz. 96,387 P.2d 799
PartiesApplication of James DUTTON, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. James DUTTON, Appellant, v. Frank A. EYMAN, Warden, et al., Arizona State Prison, Appellee.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

James Dutton, pro. se.

Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., John A. Murphy and Philip M. Haggerty, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

JENNINGS, Justice.

James Dutton, appellant, petitioned the Superior Court of Pinal County for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from the Arizona State Prison where he is presently serving an indeterminate sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Pima County in November of 1956. From the denial of that petition, this appeal followed.

On November 22, 1956, appellant was convicted of robbery. The conviction was affirmed in State v. Dutton, 83 Ariz. 193, 318 P.2d 667 (1957).

After denial of his motion for rehearing, appellant petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which petition was denied. The United States Supreme Court refused certiorari.

Appellant, on July 4, 1958, and again on January 6, 1960, petitioned the United States District Court for the District of Arizona for a writ of habeas corpus. Both of these petitions were denied. A subsequent petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari was returned for failure to comply with the rules of that court.

Subsequent thereto, on April 4, 1960, appellant petitioned the Superior Court of Pinal County for a writ of habeas corpus. Not receiving any immediate reply, he petitioned this Court, which petition was denied on June 28, 1960. Following this denial the Pinal County Superior Court allowed appellant to have a hearing. That court similarly denied his petition and it is from that denial this appeal has been taken.

Appellant filed yet another petition with the Federal District Court for the Distrist of Arizona. Pending this appeal, that petition was denied.

Appellant asserts that his constitutional rights were infringed in the following particulars: (1) that he was not allowed to communicate with court-appointed counsel to aid in the prosecution of the first petition filed with the federal court; (2) that he was denied the opportunity to communicate with legal aid societies to secure counsel to aid in petitioning the Pinal County Superior Court; (3) that he has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

We need not delve further into the merits of appellant's first two contentions for the reason that the constitutional guarantee of the right of counsel does not apply to habeas corpus proceedings. United States ex rel. Sholter v. Claudy, 203 F.2d 805 (3rd Cir. 1953); Commonwealth ex rel. Johnson v. Burke, 173 Pa.Super. 105, 93n A.2d 876 (1953); People ex rel. Ross v. Raten, 391 Ill. 419, 63 N.E.2d 874, 162 A.L.R. 920 (1945).

We will not review appellant's final contention. The writ of habeas corpus may not be utilized for the purpose of correcting alleged mistreatment of a prison inmate by prison authorities subsequent to valid judgment and commitment. 1 State ex rel....

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Honore v. Washington State Bd. of Prison Terms and Paroles
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1970
    ... Page 660 ... 77 Wn.2d 660 ... 466 P.2d 485 ... Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Elwood Joseph ... HONORE, Petitioner, ... WASHINGTON STATE BOARD OF PRISON TERMS AND PAROLES, Respondent ... No ... Rhay, Supra; Foster v. United States, 345 F.2d 675 (6th Cir. 1965); Cullins v. Crouse, 348 F.2d 887 (10th Cir. [466 P.2d 489] 1965); Dutton v. Eyman, 95 Ariz. 96, 387 P.2d 799 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 913, 84 S.Ct. 1176, 12 L.Ed.2d 182 (1964); Loftis v. Amrine, 152 Kan. 464, 105 ... ...
  • Jaramillo v. State, 2 CA-HC 2017-0001
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • March 6, 2018
    ... ... of correcting alleged mistreatment of a prison inmate by prison authorities subsequent to valid judgment and commitment"), quoting In re Dutton, 95 Ariz. 96, 97 (1963); see also Goodman v. State, 96 Ariz. 139, 142 (1964) ("Relief cannot be granted while petitioner is still lawfully held in ... 13-4122, an application for a writ of habeas corpus must "nam[e] all the parties," including "the officer or person by whom [the subject of the petition] is ... confined ... ...
  • State v. Bost
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 1966
    ... ... On March 26th he appeared before the court and notwithstanding the fact that he was not entitled to appointed counsel (Application Of Dutton, 95 Ariz. 96, 387 P.2d 799 (1963); Cert. Denied Dutton v. Eyman, 377 U.S. 913, 84 S.Ct. 1176, 12 L.Ed.2d 182, was sworn as to his ability ... ...
  • Darnell v. Peyton
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1968
    ... ... United States, 374 F.2d 486, 489 (7th Cir. 1967); People ex rel. Ross v. Ragen, 391 Ill. 419, 63 N.E.2d 874, 875, 162 A.L.R. 920 (1945); Dutton v. Eyman, 95 Ariz. 96, 387 P.2d 799, 800 (1963); Austin v. State, 91 Idaho 404, 422 P.2d 71, 74 (1966); Commonwealth ex rel. Bell v. Russell, 422 Pa ...         In the present case the hearing of the habeas corpus proceeding involved not only the constitutionality and application of the recidivist statute (Code § 53--296), but also whether the petitioner had had adequate and effective assistance of counsel at his original ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT