Ex parte Beard, A-11874

• Decision Date: 09 December 1953
• Docket Number: No. A-11874,A-11874
• Citation: 97 Okla.Crim. 391,264 P.2d 368
• Parties: Ex parte BEARD.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 368

264 P.2d 368

97 Okla.Crim. 391

Ex parte BEARD.

No. A-11874.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 9, 1953.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The unverified petition for habeas corpus with no certified copy of information or judgment and sentence of lower court attached to petition was insufficient to question validity of commitment by which petitioner was incarcerated in penitentiary.

2. Every presumption favors regularity of proceedings being reviewed in habeas corpus proceedings.

3. Petitioner has burden to sustain allegations of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.

4. Petitioner found to have failed to establish that his constitutional or statutory rights were violated.

Emmett Beard, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Emmett Beard, an inmate of the State Penitentiary at McAlester, has filed a petition, pro se, seeking a writ of habeas corpus from this court directing his release from such imprisonment.

Petitioner alleges that his constitutional rights have been violated. It is stated that on the 13th day of November, 1951, he entered a plea of guilty to robbery with firearms in case No. 20616 in the district court of Oklahoma County, where he was charged conjointly with two other persons. It is claimed that the officers forced him to confess to three crimes in which he did not in fact participate. It is stated in the petition:

'That is to say that your petitioner was arresed at his home in connection with two other prisoners, identified in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary as No. 52901 and No. 52931, for the crime of robbery with firearms, the aforecited and described charges, that your petitioner did not take any active part in the commission of said crimes, at the time of the commission of same evidence showed that your petitioner had been given some drug by the above referred persons, who, while your petitioner was in such a condition as to not be aware of same, used your petitioner's automobile in the commission of said crimes, that your petitioner did not know that any crime had been committed until at such a time as he was returned to his home and later regained his mental being, and was told by the above referred subjects what had taken place, that your petitioner was offered a part of the money taken in said robbery, but refused same, that thereafter the above described person did take your petitioner's automobile without his knowledge and were apprehended by the police of Oklahoma City after said persons had wrecked your petitioner's automobile during the commission of another crime in which your petitioner was not even present. That your petitioner was arrested the same night of said crimes or early the next day and did not have an opportunity to fully regain his senses and could not have informed the police, had he wanted to so do, until he was placed in jail and charged with the actual commission of said crimes, that your petitioner was thereafter forced to enter a of guilty to said crimes under threats of beatings, mental duress and coercion, and through ignorance of the law, that he could be convicted and given long prison sentences in each of the cases, where the evidence showed that your petitioner had been unaware that a crime had even been committed.'

Attached to the petition are two unverified statements purportedly executed one by Fred Etheridge and one by Fred Jordon, the two other persons charged conjointly with petitioner. Neither the petition nor the attached statements are sworn to before a notary public and for such reason do not entitle the petition to consideration. Tit. 12 O.S. 1951, §§ 1332; Ex parte Conway, Okl.Cr., 256 P.2d 189, certiorari denied Conway v. Waters, 345 U.S. 967, 73 S.Ct. 955, 97 L.Ed. 1385; Ex parte Peck, Okl.Cr., 248 P.2d 655; Arles v. Burford, Okl.Cr., 239 P.2d 526.

Nevertheless we did by reason of the positive statements in the petition and anxious to be sure that petitioner's constitutional rights had not been violated, issue rule to show cause. After some delay on...