Riddle, Application of, A-12239
| Decision Date | 18 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. A-12239,A-12239 |
| Parties | Application of Elbert RIDDLE for Writ of Habeas Corpus. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Writ of habeas corpus cannot be invoked for the purpose of reviewing acts of courts of record, when they act within their jurisdiction, nor can it be invoked for the purpose of correcting irregularities or errors, or as substituted for an appeal.
2. The question of whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the jury to separate prior to selection of the twelfth juror and the introduction of evidence, Tit. 22 O.S.1951 § 853, is properly a matter which should have been brought to this court by appeal and cannot be brought by habeas corpus.
Original Proceeding in which Elbert Riddle seeks his release from confinement in the State Penitentiary by writ of habeas corpus. Writ denied.
Elbert Riddle, McAlester, petitioner pro se.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner sets out that he is at this time incarcerated in the State Penitentiary at McAlester, serving a life sentence by reason of a conviction in the district court of Comanche County where he had been charged with the crime of murder.
Petitioner sets out that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the judgment rendered for the reason that allegedly the first day of trial only eleven jurors were selected, and the court recessed, leaving assumedly, the twelfth juror to be selected the following day. But the gist of the complaint is that the court abused its discretion in permitting the eleven jurors to separate during the night and go to their respective homes. It is claimed that the separation was over the objection of defendant.
If the jury was allowed to separate the court no doubt relied on Tit. 22 O.S.1951 § 853.
We note from the records of this court that the petitioner here was jointly charged with his sister, Maudine Virginia Riddle, with the crime of the murder of one Robert W. Henry. Maudine Viginia Riddle appealed her case to this court and raised the above question. See Riddle v. State, 92 Okl.Cr. 397, 223 P.2d 379, 380. In the fourth paragraph of the syllabus in that case we said:
'There is no statute requiring prospective jurors to be kept together overnight pending the selection of a Jury.'
The complaint here involves an alleged error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whatley, Application of, A-12430
...a case would reach this court with petition in error and case made on appeal, and the issues are not entitled to treatment. In re Riddle, Okl.Cr., 292 P.2d 1043; Ex parte Keel, 62 Okl.Cr. 277, 71 P.2d 313; Ex parte Robnett, 69 Okl.Cr. 235, 101 P.2d To demonstrate that petitioner's constitut......
-
Macon, Application of, 60898
...a motion for new trial, and if the same was overruled, then an appeal could have been perfected to this court. As we said in In re Riddle, Okl.Cr., 292 P.2d 1043: 'Writ of habeas corpus cannot be invoked for the purpose of reviewing acts of courts of record, when they act within their juris......
-
Ex parte Talley, A-13512
...jurisdictions. Nor can it be envoked for the purpose of correcting irregularities or errors, or as a substitute for an appeal. In re Riddle, Okl.Cr., 292 P.2d 1043; Shelton v. State, Okl.Cr., 381 P.2d 324, and cases The Court finds that petitioner is not entitled to be discharged from impri......
-
Riddle v. McLeod, 5519.
...disclose that on January 18, 1956, the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma denied petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. Application of Riddle, Okl. Cr., 292 P.2d 1043. The Supreme Court of the United States denied a writ of certiorari on March 26, 1956. See 350 U.S. 1001, 76 S.Ct. We have e......