Ex parte Reynolds
| Decision Date | 24 July 1930 |
| Docket Number | A-7636. |
| Parties | Ex parte REYNOLDS. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
Criminal Court of Appeals will not generally entertain application for habeas corpus except at instance of one restrained for violation of criminal or quasi criminal law.
Ordinarily this court will not entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus unless the application is by or in behalf of a person restrained by reason of some supposed violation of the criminal or quasi criminal law.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Habeas corpus proceedings to secure release from insane hospital could not be maintained in Criminal Court of Appeals.
Original application by David M. Reynolds for writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from custody in the hospital for the insane at Vinita.
Case dismissed.
W. D Halfhill, of Muskogee, for petitioner.
J Berry King, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus. Petitioner alleges that he is confined at the hospital for insane at Vinita Okl.; that he was adjudged insane by the county court of Caddo county and committed to the asylum at Norman, Okl.; and that it was afterwards adjudged by the said county court that he was not insane and he was ordered discharged. Prior thereto he had been paroled by the physician in charge at the asylum, and that notwithstanding the order for his discharge he was transferred to and is now confined in the hospital for insane at Vinita. The application was filed in this court in November, 1929; it has never been presented to the court nor any judge thereof nor any brief in support filed. We consider the application abandoned. However, it should be disposed of upon the further ground that in this case the proceeding is civil in its nature. It is generally said that habeas corpus is neither strictly a civil proceeding nor a criminal proceeding, but rather a summary application by the person detained for the purpose of securing his liberty. 12 R. C. L. 1184. In some cases the proceeding is looked upon as civil, and in others as criminal, in nature. Simmons v. Georgia Iron & Coal Co., 117 Ga. 305, 43 S.E. 780, 61 L. R. A. 739; Gleason v. Com'rs of McPherson County, 30 Kan. 384, 1 P. 384; Carruth v. Taylor, 8 N. D. 166, 77 N.W. 617; Bailey, Habeas Corpus, § 4; Fisher et al., etc., v. Baker et al., 203 U.S. 174, 27 S.Ct. 135, 51 L.Ed. 142, 7 Ann. Cas. 1018, note. In Legate v. Legate, 87 Tex. 248, 28 S.W. 281, 282, it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial