In re Pikulik

• Decision Date: 02 February 1892
• Citation: 81 Wis. 158,51 N.W. 261
• Parties: IN RE PIKULIK.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

81 Wis. 158

51 N.W. 261

IN RE PIKULIK.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 2, 1892.

This is a petition by Paul Pikulik for a writ of habeas corpus. Denied.

LYON, C. J.

The petition for the writ of habeas corpus shows that in January, 1891, in the municipal court of Milwaukee county, the petitioner was convicted of the crime of burglary, as defined in section 4408, Rev. St., and was sentenced by the court to imprisonment in the state-prison at hard labor “for not less than three years, nor more than eight years.” The sentence is in the form prescribed by section 4733, Rev. St., as amended by chapter 390, Laws 1889; that is to say, it is a general or indeterminate sentence. The petitioner is now held in custody under such sentence, and prays that a writ of habeas corpus issue to the warden of the stateprison, to the end that the petitioner may be released from such imprisonment. The sole ground upon which the writ is asked is that the statute under which the petitioner was sentenced contravenes the constitution, in that it attempts to confer upon the state board of supervision (now, by chapter 221, Laws 1891, the state board of control) both executive and judicial powers, which are exclusively vested by the constitution in the governor and the courts, respectively; and hence that the statute is void, and the imprisonment illegal. Conceding that the statute under which the petitioner was sentenced is invalid, still he has mistaken his remedy. The municipal court had jurisdiction to try the petitioner for the offense charged, and, on conviction, to sentence him to imprisonment in the state-prison therefor. It also had jurisdiction of his person. On the theory that the general sentence statute is invalid, the court merely entered and enforced the wrong judgment. The supposed error is not a jurisdictional one, and hence is not available on habeas corpus; for it is settled law that, on habeas corpus, the court can only inquire into jurisdictional defects in the proceedings. The remedy is by writ of error. In re Graham, (In re McDonald,) 74 Wis. 450, 43 N W. Rep. 148, and cases cited.

The question sought to be raised on this petition of the validity of the statute authorizing indeterminate sentences, and conferring upon the state board of control power to discharge or parole a prisoner so sentenced, after he has served the minimum term of his sentence, is an interesting and very important one, and it is not at all clear how it should be solved. Statutes in Michigan and Ohio authorizing such sentences, and conferring upon the prison boards of managers similar powers, at least as regards the parole of such prisoners, have been passed upon by the respective ...