Ex parte Adams
| Decision Date | 26 July 1924 |
| Docket Number | A-5069. |
| Parties | EX PARTE ADAMS. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
In a habeas corpus proceeding, where petitioner alleges that the court was without jurisdiction of the offense charged, the venue being in another county, and where the warden of the penitentiary made return on rule to show cause that petitioner is held by virtue of a judgment of commitment from the district court of another county, whether the judgment of conviction from the county named in the application as having no jurisdiction was improperly rendered is moot, and cannot be considered on appeal.
Habeas corpus by John Q. Adams for release from custody. Writ denied.
In a habeas corpus proceeding, where petitioner alleges that the court was without jurisdiction of the offense charged, the venue being in another county, and where the warden of the penitentiary made return on rule to show cause that petitioner is held by virtue of a judgment of commitment from the district court of another county, whether the judgment of conviction from the county named in the application as having no jurisdiction was improperly rendered is moot, and cannot be considered on appeal.
R. C Roland, of Ardmore, for petitioner.
The Attorney General, for respondent.
Petitioner says he is illegally restrained of his liberty by the warden of the penitentiary on an illegal judgment of conviction, for forgery, from the district court of Stephens county; that the court of Stephens county was without jurisdiction of the offense charged, the venue being in another county.
The warden has made return upon the rule to show cause, showing that the petitioner is held by the warden by virtue and authority of a judgment and commitment from the district court of Marshall county, issued on September 30, 1919, and affirmed by this court, wherein it was ordered that the petitioner be held by the warden as a prisoner for a period of 10 years.
The proof of this judgment and commitment from the district court of Marshal county is confirmed by the records of this court as well as by the record of the commitment, as certified to by the warden, who shows that he is holding the petitioner by virtue of this commitment.
Whether or not the judgment of conviction from the district court of Stephens county was rendered without that court having jurisdiction is therefore at this time a moot...
To continue reading
Request your trial