Ex parte Parrott, A-11893
| Decision Date | 15 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. A-11893,A-11893 |
| Parties | Ex parte PARROTT. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Habeas corpus is available to a youth who plead guilty and was found guilty and was sentenced to the penitentiary in denial of his constitutional right to the aid of counsel, where said youth is uneducated, illiterate and inexperienced and his parents were not notified in time to counsel and advise with accused, and procure legal counsel for him.
2. The burden is on the petitioner to establish by clear and convincing proof the denial of constitutional rights before he may be sustained in a habeas corpus proceeding.
3. Where the trial court had jurisdiction of the petitioner's person, of the subject-matter, and authority under the law to pronounce the sentence rendered and committed no act causing the loss of jurisdiction, habeas corpus will be denied.
4. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal.
Clem H. Stephenson, Wewoka, for petitioner.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
There was filed a verified petition in habeas corpus by Mrs. Eva Parrott, mother of Joe Harold Parrott, for and on behalf of him as petitioner. In said petition he alleges that he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the Warden of the Oklahoma State Reformatory at Granite, Oklahoma. He urges the cause of said restraint is a certain judgment and sentence entered against him in the district court of Love county, Oklahoma, on December 16, 1952 for the crime of second degree burglary of a mercantile establishment allegedly committed on the night of December 13, 1952 in Marietta, Oklahoma.
In said petition it was alleged in substance that the petitioner was a youth of the age of 20 years inexperienced in court proceedings, and ignorant of his rights to consult with his mother or have the aid of counsel, all of which he says was denied him by the sheriff, county attorney and the Judge who accepted his plea of guilty and sentenced him. He further alleges, that he was threatened with being chained to the bars of his cell and with being detained in the county jail without food as a means of extracting a confession and a plea of guilty, which he entered to said charge on the representation that if he plead guilty, he would be given a suspended sentence.
To this petition the state responded expressly denying all of the said facts and in addition thereto specifically alleged that the petitioner was not inexperienced and was not mistreated, threatened or misled or intimidated as in the petition alleged.
The response further alleges that the petitioner was ineligible for a suspended sentence by reason of his past criminal record and hence was not ignorant or inexperienced in court proceedings relative to his rights.
This matter was set for hearing on February 21, 1953, and on said date came on for hearing. Witnesses were sworn and heard, and affidavits of the District Judge, W. J. Monroe, County Attorney Floyd Miller and Sheriff Horton Bone were offered in evidence, affirmatively showing the petitioner was not threatened or intimidated or denied food in order to obtain his confession, but that his confession was voluntarily made within three hours after he was brought to Love county. The evidence offered by the state further shows, that the petitioner as revealed by the court minutes was advised of his rights to 24 hours in which to plead, of his right to aid of counsel, and the record shows that though the petitioner said he understood his right to a lawyer, he affirmatively stated a lawyer could do him no good.
The record further shows that the petitioner's mother was notified, and permitted conferences with her son before sentence and afterwards, and she was advised her son needed a lawyer, but that she said she would not hire one, because she had done all she could for her son. Moreover the state's evidence affirmatively controverts the threats and the denial of food to the petitioner. It affirmatively shows that he was fed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of Pate
...and the proof must be clear and convincing to sustain the allegations. Nelson v. Burford, 92 Okl.Cr. 224, 222 P.2d 382; Ex parte Parrott, 97 Okl.Cr. 8, 256 P.2d 462. In Hendrickson v. State, 93 Okl.Cr. 379, 229 P.2d 196, this Court reviewed the many authorities touching upon the admissibili......
-
Ex parte Duty, A-12523
...asserted in a petition for habeas corpus, since, as we have repeatedly held, habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal. Ex parte Parrott, 97 Okl.Cr. 8, 256 P.2d 462; Ex parte Conway, 97 Okl.Cr. 1, 256 P.2d 189. In the latter case, we held only jurisdictional matters may be inquired into ......
-
Ex parte Beard, A-11874
...rights were violated, and consequently the judgments complained of must stand. Ex parte Murray, Okl.Cr., 257 P.2d 327; Ex parte Parrott, Okl.Cr., 256 P.2d 462; Ex parte Burton, Okl.Cr., 250 P.2d 227, certiorari denied Burton v. Waters, 345 U.S. 929, 73 S.Ct. 789, 97 L.Ed. The writ is denied......
-
Marshall v. State
...of the foregoing elements of jurisdiction were lacking, or that anything occurred to cause the court to lose jurisdiction. Ex parte Parrott, 97 Okl.Cr. 8, 256 P.2d 462. Moreover, we have carefully read the record herein and the action of the trial court in sustaining the petition for revoca......