Ex parte Hinley

• Decision Date: 25 July 1951
• Docket Number: No. A-11606,A-11606
• Citation: 94 Okla.Crim. 267,234 P.2d 947
• Parties: Ex parte HINLEY.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 947

234 P.2d 947

94 Okla.Crim. 267

Ex parte HINLEY.

No. A-11606.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 25, 1951.

Writ of Certiorari Denied Oct. 15, 1951.

See 72 S.Ct. 83.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A writ of error coram nobis does not lie to correct any error in the judgment of the court, nor to contradict or to put in issue any fact directly passed upon and confirmed by the judgment itself, nor to review and revise the court's opinions, but only enables the court to recall some adjudication made while some fact existed which, if before the court, would have prevented the rendition of the judgment, and which, without any fault or negligence of the party, was not presented to the court.

2. The right given to one convicted of crime to file a motion in arrest of judgment or a motion for new trial because of newly discovered evidence, and other statutory remedies have largely superseded the office and functions of the common law writ of coram nobis.

3. Confession of guilt by another than the applicant for writ of error coram nobis will not furnish sufficient reason for issuance of this writ, and the allegation of newly discovered evidence is likewise unavailable for said purpose.

Jake Hinley, pro se.

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

BRETT, Presiding Judge.

This is an original action for writ of error coram nobis brought by Jake Hinley, as petitioner, an inmate of the State penitentiary. In said petition it appears he was convicted in Jefferson county, Oklahoma, with the crime of first degree rape of one Nellie B. Hinley, who he alleges was past 16 years of age at the time of the alleged crime. He alleges she was born September 4, 1922. Nellie B. Hinley, the victim of the alleged rape, was the daughter of the petitioner, Ex parte Hinley, 79 Okl.Cr. 382, 155 P.2d 265. The foregoing case recites there was a conflict in the evidence between Hinley's testimony and that of his daughter, at the trial resulting in his conviction and the sentence as imposed on November 27, 1938, Ex parte Hinley, 84 Okl.Cr. 437, 183 P.2d 602. It is well to observe that this matter has been here on habeas corpus twice in addition to the foregoing cited cases, Ex parte Hinley, 88 Okl.Cr. 81, 199 P.2d 613; Ex parte Hinley, Okl.Cr.App., 220 P.2d 844, (not yet reported in State reports). But these actions would not constitute a bar to this proceeding if such proceedings presented a proper case. But, as was said in State ex rel. Burford v. Sullivan, 86 Okl.Cr. 364, 193 P.2d 594, 596: 'A writ of error coram nobis does not lie to correct any error in the judgment of the court, nor to contradict or to put in issue any fact directly passed upon and confirmed by the judgment itself, nor to review and revise the court's opinions but only enables the court to recall some adjudication made while some fact existed which, if before the court, would have prevented the rendition of the judgment, and which, without any fault or negligence of the party, was not presented to the court.'

Under the provisions of Title 22, §§ 951, 952 O.S.A.1941, providing for procedure for obtaining a new trial, we can hardly conceive of a situation not covered by these provisions. The provisions of § 952, subsection 7, in relation to granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence provides the basis for relief herein sought by writ of error coram nobis. It reads as follows, towit: 'When new evidence is discovered, material to the defendant, and which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered before the trial, or when it can be shown that the grand jury was not drawn summoned or impaneled as provided by law, and that the facts in relation thereto were unknown to the defendant or his attorney until after the trial jury in the case was sworn and were not of record. When a motion for a new trial is made on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must produce at the hearing in support thereof affidavits of witnesses, or he may take testimony in support thereof as provided in Section 5781, and if time is required by the defendant to procure such affidavits or testimony, the court may postpone the hearing of the motion for such length of time as under all the circumstances of the case may seem reasonable.' Herein the petitioner seeks to do the very thing we said in State ex rel. Burford v. Sullivan, supra, could not be done. Herein through the affidavit of ...