Ex Parte Brandon

• Decision Date: 14 May 1887
• Parties: <I>Ex parte</I> BRANDON.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 452

4 S.W. 452

Ex parte BRANDON.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 14, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Phillips county. Habeas corpus.

Stephenson & Trieber, for appellant.

SMITH, J.

Brandon was charged in the mayor's court of Helena with disorderly conduct; pleaded not guilty; demanded a jury trial, which was refused; and was then tried by the mayor, convicted, and fined. Failing to pay the fine, he was taken into custody by the city marshal; whereupon he applied by petition to the circuit court for the writ of habeas corpus; but his prayer was denied, and he has appealed.

The question that is sought to be presented is whether a person charged with the violation of a city ordinance is entitled to a trial by jury in the police court of a city of the second class. But an application for habeas corpus cannot be made to perform the function of an appeal or writ of error, in correcting errors and irregularities at the trial. To authorize the judge of the superior courts to interfere, and discharge a convicted prisoner in this summary fashion, the sentence must be a nullity, or the court which imposed it must have been without jurisdiction. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193; Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18; Ex parte Mason, 105 U. S. 696; Ex parte Carll, 106 U. S. 521, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 724; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 935; State v. Glenn, 54 Md. 572. Section 3570 of Mansfield's Digest enacts, among other things, that it shall be the duty of the judge forthwith to remand the prisoner, if it shall appear that he is held in custody by virtue of the final judgment of any competent court of civil or criminal jurisdiction. And our previous decisions have conformed to the principle embodied in this statute. Ex parte Jones, 27 Ark. 349; Ex parte Stow, Id. 354; Ex parte Martin, Id. 467; Ex parte Jackson, 45 Ark. 158.

The judgment exhibited with the petition shows a conviction of an offense of which the mayor's court had unquestioned jurisdiction. And if in the progress of the trial, or in the proceedings preliminary to the trial, errors were committed, to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the prisoner, these errors must be brought for review before an appellate court in the regular way. Habeas corpus is not a proper proceeding to test the validity of a conviction where the prisoner has been denied a jury. The remedy was by appeal to...