Ex parte Rockholt
| Decision Date | 14 July 1960 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 911 |
| Citation | 271 Ala. 68,122 So.2d 162 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ex parte Edward A. ROCKHOLT. |
Edward A. Rockholt, pro se.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Jas. W. Webb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an original petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in this court by Edward A. Rockholt pro se. Rockholt is confined in Kilby Prison under a fifteen-year sentence based on a conviction of rape in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County in 1947.
It appears from the petition that Rockholt applied to a judge of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. § 6, Title 15, Code 1940. The petition so presented was stricken on motion of the State.
It is averred in the petition filed here that Rockholt gave notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals from the action of the judge striking his petition, but that no appeal has reached the Court of Appeals and the clerk of that court has informed Rockholt that the Court of Appeals 'has jurisdiction of petitions for habeas corpus only on appeal from the lower court.' But see § 89, Title 13, Code 1940.
The writ of habeas corpus is issued by this court only when necessary in the exercise of the 'general superintendence and control of inferior jurisdictions' with which it is clothed by § 140 of the Constitution. The necessity which will authorize the issuance of the writ in this court does not exist unless the judge of some court invested with jurisdiction to act in the premises has undertaken to decide upon the case of a party aggrieved or else, without any just cause therefor, has refused to entertain the same. Ex parte Winnagle, 269 Ala. 668, 115 So.2d 261, and cases cited; Ex parte Thomas, Ala., 118 So.2d 738.
The practice to be pursued in obtaining the writ from this court was very deliberately and carefully prescribed in Ex parte Croom, 19 Ala. 561. The party aggrieved by the decision of the inferior jurisdiction in the matter of his discharge must on oath present a petition or application to this court disclosing a state of case which will show that the inferior jurisdiction has erred to his prejudice and that upon the case made before that jurisdiction he is entitled to the relief he seeks. Ex parte Croom, supra; Ex parte Winnagle, supra.
Niceties of pleading are not favored in habeas corpus proceedings. A petition which substantially complies with the provisions of § 4, Title 15, Code 1940, and its corollary statutes is all that is necessary to secure the writ and bring before the judge the petitioner and his cause of detention. State v. Thurman, 17 Ala.App. 656, 88 So. 61.
Section 8, Title 15, Code 1940, provides for the issuance of the writ unless it appears from the petition itself or from the documents thereto annexed that the person so restrained is not entitled to the benefit of the writ. State ex rel. Attorney General v. Speake, 187 Ala. 426, 65 So. 840; Ex parte Thomas, supra.
The safe rule for trial judges or courts to follow is to grant the writ and dispose of the case finally upon the return to the writ unless it is very clear from the petition that petitioner is not entitled to the writ. Robertson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 514, 104 So. 561; The Law of Habeas Corpus in Alabama, by Judge Walter B. Jones, 3 Alabama Law Journal 155.
The amended petition which Rockholt avers he presented to a judge of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County is before us. It is almost unintelligible.
But if we assume that the amended petition did not show on its face that Rockholt was not entitled to the benefit of the writ and, therefore, the writ should have been granted and the matter of his discharge disposed of on return to the writ it does not follow that the writ must be issued here.
The petition which Rockholt has filed in this court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice v. State, 5 Div. 885
...Ex parte Thomas, 270 Ala. 411, 118 So.2d 738, cert. denied, 363 U.S. 822, 80 S.Ct. 1263, 4 L.Ed.2d 1521 (1960); Ex parte Rockholt, 271 Ala. 68, 122 So.2d 162 (1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 935, 81 S.Ct. 384, 5 L.Ed.2d 368 (1961); State v. Thurman, 17 Ala.App. 656, 88 So. 61 (1921). In Power......
-
Parham v. State
...Court that a mistrial be declared and entered in this case and that it be continued to December, 1968, King, Judge.' In Ex parte Rockholt, 271 Ala. 68, 122 So.2d 162, the petitioner in habeas corpus sought to impeach his conviction by showing by parol testimony that neither he, his counsel,......
-
O'Such v. State
...P.2d 153 (1977). Accordingly, we sua sponte reverse and instruct the district court to dismiss the habeas petition." In Ex parte Rockholt, 271 Ala. 68, 69, 122 So.2d 162, it is "The practice to be pursued in obtaining the writ [of habeas corpus] from this court was very deliberately and car......
-
Bradley v. State
...corpus out of this court. Ex parte Winnagle, 269 Ala. 668, 115 So.2d 261; Ex parte Thomas, 270 Ala. 411, 118 So.2d 738; Ex parte Rockholt, 271 Ala. 68, 122 So.2d 162. Bradley could have presented for our review the matters which were before the trial judge by filing here a correct record sh......