Pigg v. Tinsley
| Decision Date | 13 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 20832,20832 |
| Citation | 158 Colo. 160,405 P.2d 687 |
| Parties | James Carlos PIGG, Plaintiff in Error, v. Harry C. TINSLEY, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Isaac Mellman, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Denver, John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
James Carlos Pigg, to whom we will refer as the petitioner, is here on writ of error to review a judgment by which the trial court denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In so doing, the trial court stated that the petition on its face showed that the petitioner was not entitled to be discharged from custody.
The petitioner was accused of first degree murder and upon the trial thereof was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Pursuant to state he was committed to the Colorado State Hospital at Pueblo. On March 11, 1963, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which in was alleged that he was illegally confined at the Colorado state penitentiary under an order of transfer made pursuant to C.R.S. '53, 71-2-4; that the statute is unconstitutional in that it violates the provisions of Article II, Section 25, Article V, Section 1, and Article 18, Section 4 of the Constitution of Colorado, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It was further alleged that the petitioner had been restored to reason and that there is no precedure other than habeas corpus by which he can secure an adjudication of his right to be released on that ground.
Counsel appearing for petitioner in this court did not represent him in the trial court. With reference to the allegations contained in the petition for writ of habeas corpus, he frankly admits that they are wholly insufficient to justify granting the relief sought by the petition. He directs our attention to decisions of this court, and elsewhere, which have determined that the statute authorizing the Governor to transfer insane persons to the state penitentiary for safe keeping does not violate the due process clause of the state or federal constitutions. Tinsley v. Crespin, 137 Colo. 302, 324 P.2d 1033; 95 A.L.R. 1455. He asserts, and correctly so, that Article V, Section 1, of the Colorado Constitution (Initiative and Referendum) 'has no bearing on any of the issues involved' in this case; and that Article XVIII, Section 4, which defines a felony, furnishes no legal basis to petitioner for the relief sought by him. It is also frankly admitted by counsel for petitioner that the opinions of this court in Bartosik v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cardiel v. Brittian
...The petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding has the burden of alleging facts entitling him to relief. Pigg v. Tinsley, 158 Colo. 160, 162, 405 P.2d 687, 689 (1965); see also § 13-45-101(1). Unless it appears from the petition and supporting documents that the petitioner is not entitled to ......
-
White v. Rickets, 83SA176
...16-13-216(2), 8 C.R.S. (1983 Supp.), does not in and of itself furnish any basis for the relief petitioner seeks. See Pigg v. Tinsley, 158 Colo. 160, 405 P.2d 687 (1965). In the absence of appropriate factual allegations in the petition, the trial court did not err in dismissing petitioner'......
-
Sollinger v. McNeel, 82SA12
...the presumption of validity as to the governor's warrant or which would require relief in the nature of habeas corpus. Pigg v. Tinsley, 158 Colo. 160, 405 P.2d 687 (1965). Accordingly, we 1 Section 16-19-104:"No demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state shal......
-
Pigg v. Patterson
...and unsuccessfully attempted to obtain his release by resort to mandamus and habeas corpus actions in the state courts. See, Pigg v. Tinsley, Colo., 405 P.2d 687. He now appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissing his petition for a writ......