Ex parte O'Neal
Decision Date | 18 November 1935 |
Docket Number | Crim. 3971 |
Parties | EX PARTE O'NEAL |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Petition by James O'Neal for habeas corpus and certiorari.
Writ denied.
Howard Hasting, for petitioner.
Carl E. Bailey, Attorney General, and Guy E Williams and J. F. Koone, Assistants, for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in this court by which is sought to quash a judgment of the Jackson Circuit Court, made and entered on September 21, 1928, in which judgment petitioner was adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced by the court to serve the balance of his natural life in the State penitentiary. The record in the Jackson Circuit Court is brought before us by stipulation of counsel which dispensed with the necessity for formal issuance of a writ of certiorari. In aid of petitioner's proceeding we are also asked to issue a writ of habeas corpus by which petitioner's body may be brought before this court to be dealt with according to law. The judgment of the circuit court of Jackson County under which petitioner is confined in the State penitentiary is as follows:
Petitioner relies upon Ex parte Jones, 27 Ark. 349, as authority for this proceeding. In the case referred to this court entertained jurisdiction in habeas corpus as an original proceeding, and in aid thereof quashed a judgment of an inferior court sentencing petitioner to a term in the State penitentiary because, as it was there said, the judgment under which the petitioner was detained was void. The facts in the Jones case, supra, were that petitioner was confined in the State penitentiary under a judgment entered by the Sebastian County Circuit Court while in session at Fort Smith, which time and place of sitting of said court were not authorized by law. This court there said "In the case at bar, the judge was clothed with no judicial authority; there was no court, consequently no judgment." In the more recent case of State ex rel. v. Neel, 48 Ark. 283, 3 S.W. 631, we stated the applicable rule as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schock v. Thomas, 81-92
...... Mitchell v. State, 233 Ark. 578, 346 S.W.2d 201 (1961); Ex Parte O'Neal, 191 Ark. 696, 87 S.W.2d 401 (1935). By that standard, Stover by its own language might just as appropriately have denied the writ and still ......
-
Mitchell v. State ex rel. Henslee
...... Ex parte Williams, 99 Ark. 475, 138 S.W. 985.'. See also Ex parte O'Neal, 191 Ark. 696, 87 S.W.2d 401; State v. Martineau, 149 Ark. 237, 232 ......
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Taylor
...parties thereto, such judgment is voidable but not void.Goodman v. Storey, 221 Ark. 308, 254 S.W.2d 63 (1952) (quoting Ex Parte O'Neal, 191 Ark. 696, 87 S.W.2d 401 (1935) ). As appellee has raised no question regarding the circuit court's exercise of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction ......
- Ex Parte O'Neal, Cr. 3971.