In re Whisenhunt
| Citation | 131 P.2d 134,75 Okla.Crim. 313 |
| Decision Date | 18 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | A-10324. |
| Parties | In re WHISENHUNT. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
The object of the writ of habeas corpus being to relieve a person from illegal restraint, where it is shown that subsequent to the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus petitioner is granted clemency by Governor and released from imprisonment, the petition will be dismissed.
Original habeas corpus proceeding by Billie Whisenhunt to secure release of petitioner from state reformatory at Granite.
Writ of habeas corpus denied.
Joe W. Simpson and F. V. Freeman, both of Tulsa, for petitioner.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus in which the petitioner, Billie Whisenhunt, seeks his release from imprisonment in the State Reformatory at Granite.
At the time of the filing of the verified petition herein this court refused to issue the writ, but granted a rule to show cause why the writ should not be issued and made the same returnable September 17, 1942.
A response was filed by the Warden of the State Penitentiary and a hearing held before this court upon the issues thus made.
Subsequent to the hearing and before this court had rendered its opinion in said matter, to-wit, on September 29, 1942, the Governor issued a leave of absence for sixty-five days to the petitioner, in accordance with the pardon and parole policy of the Governor. The petitioner accepted this clemency from the Governor and is now at liberty.
The object of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve the petitioner from illegal restraint or unlawful imprisonment and where the petitioner is released and not held in actual custody there is nothing for this court to adjudicate. Ex parte Davis, 11 Okl.Cr. 403, 146 P. 1085.
For this reason, the writ of habeas corpus is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Rausch v. State
-
Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Union Ins. Co.
...Oklahoma courts have cited the plain and ordinary meaning rule before conducting an efficient proximate cause analysis. See Duensing, 131 P.2d at 134; Gerlicher, 2011 WL 3903246, at *5. 4. Mid-Continent submitted a letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) citing Quadrang......
-
Ex parte Anderson
... ... of habeas corpus is filed and it is subsequently shown that ... the petitioner is not restrained of his liberty, the action ... will be dismissed on the ground that the issues are moot. Ex ... parte Davis, 11 Okl.Cr. 403, 146 P. 1085; In re ... Whisenhunt, 75 Okl.Cr. 313, 131 P.2d 134; Ex parte ... Bennett, Okl.Cr.App., 162 P.2d 588, not yet reported in ... Oklahoma Criminal Reports ... In the ... case of In re Whisenhunt, supra [75 Okl.Cr. 313, 131 ... P.2d 135], it is held: ... 'The ... object of the ... ...