Ingersoll v. Kunkel

• Decision Date: 20 October 1936
• Docket Number: 26685.
• Citation: 4 N.E.2d 183,210 Ind. 482
• Parties: INGERSOLL v. KUNKEL.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

4 N.E.2d 183

210 Ind. 482

INGERSOLL v. KUNKEL.

No. 26685.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

October 20, 1936

Petition for writ of habeas corpus by Robert Ingersoll against Louis E. Kunkel, Warden of the Indiana State Prison. From a judgment quashing the petition, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, La Porte County; Russell W. smith judge.

T Ernest Maholm, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Philip Lutz, Jr., Atty. Gen., and J. Edward Barce and Caleb J. Lindsey, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

HUGHES, Chief Justice.

The appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It appears from the petition that the appellant is restrained of his liberty by the appellee, as warden of the Indiana State Prison, located at Michigan City, La Porte county, Ind., by valid commitment of the Hamilton circuit court of Indiana, issued upon a valid judgment of said court, rendered and entered upon April 7, 1931.

The appellant alleges in his petition for the writ that the judgment upon which the commitment was issued was void for the reason that:

‘ That the Grand Jury which was drawn from the Jury Box, by the jury commissioners of Hamilton County, Indiana, to act and serve as Grand Jurors for the October term of 1930, and which thereafter, did, on the 27th day of December, 1930, present indictment No. 4801, entitled State of Indiana v. Robert Ingersoll (this petitioner), was not organized in accordance with the statute, and was illegally constituted, in that the names of legal voters theretofore placed in the jury box, of Hamilton County, Indiana, to be drawn as Grand and Petit Jurors by the Jury Commissioners of Hamilton County, Indiana, excluded women on account of their sex, and they, the said Jury Commissioners of Hamilton County, Indiana, did arbitrarily refuse and exclude the names of females as a class of legal voters, whose names were then and there on the tax duplicate of Hamilton County, Indiana, for the current year of 1929, not to be drawn for jury service during the year, 1930.’

The appellee filed a motion to quash the petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was sustained. The appellant has appealed from said ruling, alleging in his assignment of errors that the court erred in sustaining appellee's motion to quash the writ of habeas corpus.

The petition upon its face shows that the Hamilton circuit court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant; that the petitioner is restrained of his liberty by means of a commitment on a final judgment of the Hamilton circuit court; and that the petitioner is seeking to have the La Porte superior court pass upon a final judgment of the Hamilton circuit court.

This court judicially knows that the Hamilton circuit court is a court of competent jurisdiction with power to hear and determine crimes and misdemeanors. Stephenson v. Daly (1927) 200 Ind. 196, 158 N.E. 289; State ex rel. Kunkel v. Circuit Court of La Porte County (Ind.Sup. March 24, 1936) 200 N.E. 614.Section 3-1918, Burns' Ann.St.1933, section 1033, Baldwin's Ind.Statutes, 1934, provides that:

‘ No court or judge shall inquire into the legality of any judgment or process whereby the party is in custody, or discharge him when the term of commitment has not expired, in either of the cases follows: * * *

‘ Section. Upon any process issued on any final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.’

In the instant case, we find from the petition that there was a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that a valid commitment was issued thereon.

In Shideler v. Vrljich (1925) 195 Ind. 563, 145 N.E. 881, 883, it is said:

‘ The recital over the hand of the clerk and seal of the court of the judgment, pursuant to which the order of commitment stated it was issued, was conclusive against a collateral attack in another court...