In re Frank A. Turner

• Decision Date: 04 January 1918
• Citation: 102 A. 943,92 Vt. 210
• Parties: IN RE FRANK A. TURNER
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

102 A. 943

92 Vt. 210

IN RE FRANK A. TURNER

Supreme Court of Vermont

January 4, 1918

Special Term at Rutland, November, 1917.

PETITION for writ of habeas corpus brought to the Supreme Court for Rutland County, and heard on an agreed statement of facts, and motion to dismiss. The opinion states the case.

It is adjudged that the relator is not unlawfully imprisoned and he is remanded to the House of Correction, whence he was taken, and his complaint is dismissed.

Lindley S. Squires for the relator.

Present WATSON, C. J., HASELTON, POWERS, TAYLOR, and MILES, JJ.

OPINION

TAYLOR

The relator pleaded guilty September 27, 1916, in the Rutland city court to a complaint charging that he, being of sufficient pecuniary ability, at the time and place named neglected and refused to provide necessary food and maintenance for his wife, Louise Turner, and four minor children, contrary to the form of the statute, etc. Thereupon the court sentenced him to be confined at hard labor in the House of Correction for a term of not less than eighteen months nor more than two years from the date of commitment. The same day he was committed to said place of imprisonment where he is still held in execution. He has been brought before this Court on a writ of habeas corpus issued on a complaint alleging that he is unlawfully imprisoned and praying that he may be relieved therefrom. The specific cause alleged why he should be discharged is that the complaint on which he was convicted and sentenced was brought under P. S 5726, which provides a penalty of not more than six months imprisonment or a fine of not more than twenty dollars, or both; and that therefore his confinement after March 27, 1917, is unlawful.

The State's attorney challenges the relator's right to a hearing on the merits of the complaint on the ground that the proceedings are barred by a decision of the Rutland county court adverse to the relator from which no exception was taken. It is conceded that the relator was before said court at its September term, 1917, on a writ of habeas corpus issued on an application addressed to said court; that he then sought a discharge from his imprisonment upon two grounds, one of which is the same as that upon which the present complaint is based; that upon hearing the county court adjudged that he was not illegally imprisoned and dismissed his complaint; and that from this judgment no exception was taken.

The question whether a decision adverse to the relator in habeas corpus proceedings is res judicata and so bars a subsequent application for the same cause is now for the first time before this Court for decision. The question has frequently arisen in other jurisdictions and an examination of the reported cases discloses a marked want of uniformity, both in reasoning and result. Some courts make a distinction between cases in which the imprisonment or restraint grows out of a civil action and those where the question is between the individual seeking his liberty and the people, or the state, seeking his restraint. In the latter class of cases the prevailing rule is that an order in one proceeding does not bar another or further proceeding for the same cause. 1 Bailey on Hab. Cor. 206; see Cormack v. Marshall, 211 Ill. 519, 71 N.E. 1077, 67 L.R.A. 787, 1 Ann. Cas. 256. The diversity of decisions is apparently affected to some extent by local statutes.

The Constitution of this State makes the writ of habeas corpus a writ issuable of right. Con. Ch. 2, Sec. 33. We have no statute regulating successive applications for the writ. The beneficent purpose of the writ is to provide a summary proceeding to determine the lawfulness of one's imprisonment or restraint. Except when imprisoned for contempt, when the writ must be returnable to the Supreme Court (P. S. 1965), application for relief may be made to the Supreme Court during its sittings, or to any Justice thereof during vacation, or to any superior judge, or to the county court in the county where the applicant is imprisoned, if in session. P. S. 1939. The court or other authority to whom the complaint is made, is required to award the writ and without delay examine the causes of imprisonment or restraint. P. S. 1942, 1954. Each is given full power to make final disposition of the application. P. S. 1958, 1960. No provision is made for review of questions of law arising in such proceedings. The general provisions of the statute relating to exceptions do not extend to the orders of a Justice of the Supreme Court, or those of a superior judge, in matters of this kind. When the application is made to the county court the relator may have its judgment reviewed on exceptions. In re Cooper, 32 Vt. 253. But that right is merely incidental and does not flow from any special jurisdiction conferred on the county court in such cases.

At common law the rule is that a final judgment remanding the prisoner in proceedings on habeas corpus does not bar a subsequent application for another writ. Ex parte Partington, 13 Mees & Welsb. 679. We do not think that the rule is affected when the application chances to be to the county court. Manifestly an order by a Justice of this Court in vacation, or by a superior judge, would not bar a subsequent application to this Court for review. But their jurisdiction in such proceedings is concurrent with that of the county court; and if their orders are not res judicata, how can it be said that those of the county court in such matters are? Considering the nature and purpose of the proceeding, which out of regard for the liberty of the citizen brooks no unnecessary delay, and as well the absence of a provision securing a review in all cases by exceptions, it must be held that a judgment on habeas corpus remanding the prisoner is not, as matter of law, a bar to subsequent proceedings of the same kind founded on the same facts. See Bradley v. Beetle; 153 Mass. 154, 26 N.E. 429.

In re Barker, 56 Vt. 1, supports this conclusion. That was a habeas corpus proceeding brought to the county court which discharged the relator. The officer having him in custody excepted and the case was heard in this Court on relator's motion to dismiss the exceptions. In course of an opinion holding that when a prisoner is discharged on habeas corpus the officer having the custody is not entitled to exceptions, it was said, quoting Baron Parke in Ex parte Partington, supra, that the relator "may renew his application to every court in the kingdom having jurisdiction, until he obtains his liberty." It is not necessary to the decision of this case to determine the full extent of the right, but it may not be out of place to suggest that it very likely has its limitations, and that the quotation from Baron Parke removed from its context, may not be an entirely accurate statement of the law.

It was intimated in Bradley v. Beetle, supra, that it was a matter of discretion in the court or justice to hear and determine a new application when it appeared that the same state of facts continued to exist as at a former hearing; and it was held in Ex parte Moebus, 74 N.H. 213, 66 A. 641, that the same questions could not be again litigated as a matter of right. In some of the cases a distinction is made between repeated applications to courts or judges of inferior jurisdiction and where the subsequent application is to a court of review, the latter being sustained and the former denied. It is enough for the present to say that the courts and justices, or judges, having jurisdiction in matters of habeas corpus are not powerless to prevent an abuse of the writ by successive applications on the same state of facts.

It is further urged that proceedings by writ of habeas corpus challenge alone the jurisdiction of the court and do not reach the charges and proceedings anterior to the judgment. It is the general rule that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, although erroneous, is binding until reversed; and it is well settled that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be given the effect of a writ for the correction of errors or irregularities. In re Fitton, 68 Vt. 297, 300, 35 A. 319. It was said in this case that one who is detained upon a sentence following conviction will not ordinarily be entitled to relief, unless the defect is such as to render the proceedings void; but that if the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the person and renders such a judgment as it would be authorized to render in some circumstances in cases of that class, the proceedings will stand the test of this writ however irregular they may have been. It is commonly said that another court cannot by means of the writ of habeas corpus look beyond the judgment and re-examine the charges and proceedings on which the judgment was...