Ex parte West

• Decision Date: 20 August 1937
• Docket Number: A-9341.
• Parties: Ex parte WEST.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

71 P.2d 129

62 Okla.Crim. 260

Ex parte WEST.

No. A-9341.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

August 20, 1937

Syllabus by the Court.

1. This court on habeas corpus will not look beyond the judgment and sentence of any court of competent jurisdiction as to mere irregularities of procedure, or errors of law on questions over which the court had jurisdiction.

2. If the court has jurisdiction of the person of defendant and of the crime charged, and does not exceed its lawful authority in passing sentence, its judgment is not void, whatever errors may have occurred during the trial.

3. Where the facts alleged in the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, if established, would not warrant the discharge of the prisoner, the writ will be denied.

Application for writ of habeas corpus by W. O. West to be directed to Jess F. Dunn, warden of the state penitentiary.

Writ denied.

C. F Gowdy, of Tulsa, for petitioner.

Mac Q Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Owen J. Watts, Asst. Atty. Gen for respondent.

DOYLE Judge.

The petitioner, W. O. West, now confined in the state penitentiary, alleges that he is unlawfully imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the warden, Jess F. Dunn.

It appears both by the petition upon which a rule to show cause issued, and by the response of the warden that the petitioner was convicted in the district court of Tulsa county, upon an information charging him with the crime of burglary in the second degree, second offense; the judgment was rendered on November 22, 1935, upon his plea of guilty, and he was sentenced to a term of five years in the penitentiary.

The petition alleges "that said restraint is illegal in this, that over timely objection he was forced to plead to the information charging him with second degree burglary as a second offense without first being given a preliminary examination on said charge as a second offense, and that the county attorney was unauthorized to file an information different from and alleging a different crime, or one which carried a different penalty than the one upon which petitioner was bound over to answer; that the information shows upon its face that it is void and of no effect in that it is not signed by the county attorney or by an assistant county attorney as required by section 2829, St.1931, 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 303, the signature being Holly L. Anderson County attorney by M. S. Simms, assistant, and that petitioner was not represented by counsel at the time he entered his plea."

The Attorney General's response on behalf of respondent and the state concludes as follows:

"For further response to the rule to show cause issued herein respondent says that the defendant did not plead guilty as a second offender as shown by respondent's 'Exhibit A', and that the second paragraph of petitioner's 'Exhibit C', which was the information filed in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, upon which the above judgment and sentence in said case No. 7441 was based, is mere surplusage and of no force and effect.

For further response to the rule to show cause issued...