In re The Petition of Dennis Dumford for A Writ of Habeas Corpus

• Decision Date: 01 March 1898
• Docket Number: 608
• Citation: 53 P. 92,7 Kan.App. 89
• Parties: In the matter of the Petition of DENNIS DUMFORD for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

53 P. 92

7 Kan.App. 89

In the matter of the Petition of DENNIS DUMFORD for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

No. 608

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Northern Department, Eastern Division

March 1, 1898

Opinion Filed May 3, 1898

Original proceeding in habeas corpus. Writ granted.

THE petitioner, Dennis Dumford, alleges that he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty at the state penitentiary, at Lansing, by Harry Landis, warden of said penitentiary. The petition, as well as the return of the warden to the writ discloses that the petitioner was charged by information in the district court of Shawnee county with the offense of grand larceny, and that he plead guilty. On the 2d day of January, 1896, on his plea of guilty, the court found that he was between sixteen and twenty-five years of age, that it was his first offense, and that he was a proper person to be sent to the Kansas state industrial reformatory; and sentenced him to be confined therein for such crime of grand larceny, under and by virtue of the provisions of chapter 200, Laws of 1895. On the 7th day of August, 1897, the board of managers of the reformatory passed a resolution declaring that Dennis Dumford was incorrigible and directing the superintendent to transfer the petitioner from the reformatory to the state penitentiary, at Lansing, to the warden, to be dealt with according to law. This resolution is the authority upon which the warden returns that he holds the petitioner in his custody in the penitentiary.

By section 14 of chapter 134, General Statutes of 1897, the legislature attempted to confer power upon the board of managers to transfer inmates from the state reformatory to the penitentiary when such inmates were apparently incorrigible or when their presence in the reformatory was seriously detrimental to the interests of the institution.

L. C Boyle, for The State.

J. S Ensminger, for petitioner.

OPINION

MAHAN, P. J.:

It is contended by counsel for petitioner that the sentence of the district court committing to the state reformatory is void for two reasons: (1) That the petitioner was under the age of fifteen years at the time of the sentence; and, (2) because the sentence is indefinite in duration. Section 11 of chapter 134, General Statutes of 1897, expressly provides that the sentence shall not fix a limit to its duration. Upon the first proposition, evidence was tendered as to the age of the petitioner at the time he was sentenced. We deem it unnecessary to enter upon a consideration of either of these objections, as the warden does not pretend to be holding the petitioner upon the sentence of the district court committing the prisoner to the state reformatory, but upon the resolution of the board of managers. But we will say that we are of the opinion that neither of the contentions can be sustained. The finding and judgment of the court are conclusive upon the first, and the second objection is covered by the statute.

The important question, and the question upon which the application must be decided, is, Had the legislature power, as representatives of ...