Shideler v. Vrljich

• Decision Date: 14 January 1925
• Docket Number: 24,178
• Citation: 145 N.E. 881,195 Ind. 563
• Parties: Shideler v. Vrljich
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

145 N.E. 881

195 Ind. 563

Shideler v. Vrljich

No. 24,178

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 14, 1925

1. HABEAS CORPUS.---Jurisdiction.---One circuit court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus and set aside an order of commitment issued by another court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the person. p. 567.

2. HABEAS CORPUS.---Jurisdiction.---Where a prisoner in the State Reformatory was held under a commitment issued by a circuit court on a conviction for grand larceny, another circuit court would have no jurisdiction in a habeas corpus proceeding for the discharge of said prisoner, after it was made to appear that the petitioner was held in custody under final process issued out of the court in which he was convicted, notwithstanding it was shown that the court issuing the commitment had suspended the judgment for a period longer than the minimum term of imprisonment and then revoked the suspension, as the statute (1176, subd. 2, Burns 1914) expressly provides that no court shall inquire into the legality of any process whereby a party is in custody "issued on any final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction." p. 567.

3. HABEAS CORPUS.---Judgment Conclusive Against Collateral Attack.---In a habeas corpus proceeding, a recital of the judgment pursuant to which the order of commitment was issued, certified by the clerk of the court issuing the order, and authenticated by his hand and the seal of the court, is conclusive against a collateral attack, the only inquiry permissible being whether the petitioner was in custody under final process issued on a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, p. 568.

4 COURTS.---Jurisdiction.---What Includes.---Jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter includes power to make a decision and enter a judgment or order that will be binding until set aside or reversed, however erroneous it may be; that is jurisdiction to decide gives power to decide wrong as well as right, p. 568.

5 COURTS.---Jurisdiction.---Circuit Courts.---One circuit court has no supervisory power over the process of another, p. 568.

6. HABEAS CORPUS.---Not Writ of Error.---A writ of habeas corpus is in no sense a writ of error, and cannot be used by one court to correct the errors of another of equal jurisdiction p. 568.

From Clark Circuit Court; James W. Fortune, Judge.

Petition by Martin Vrljich for writ of habeas corpus against George A. H. Shideler, as warden of the Indiana Reformatory. From a judgment for the petitioner, the defendant appeals.

Reversed.

U. S. Lesh, Attorney-General, and Connor D. Ross, Deputy Attorney-General, for appellant.

OPINION

Ewbank, J.

On January 31, 1922, appellee filed in the Clark Circuit Court, of Clark county, Indiana, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, commanding the warden of the Indiana Reformatory to show cause why petitioner should not be discharged from imprisonment therein. The warden made return that he held appellee under an order of commitment by the Lake Circuit Court, of Lake county, Indiana, and produced an order purporting to recite a judgment of that court, signed by the judge, which was certified by the clerk under the seal of the court, and contained no reference to a suspension of the sentence, but stated that on April 11, 1921, appellee (defendant therein) was found "guilty of the crime charged, namely: Grand Larceny, (and that) it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said defendant for the offense by him committed * * * be committed to the custody of the Board of Trustees of the Indiana Reformatory, to be confined by them according to law for a period of not less than one year nor more than 14 years. * * * The sheriff of Lake county is hereby charged with the due execution of the foregoing judgment." Appellee answered the return by denying specifically that he was adjudged guilty of grand larceny on April 11, 1921, but averring that "said conviction was had and said judgment was entered in said court on the 16th day of December, 1919," and "that on said day said judgment and sentence was suspended and the same was never revoked within the time of said minimum term, and not until the 11th day of April, 1921," at which time, it was alleged, "said court without any authority of law did attempt to revoke said suspended sentence and thereupon without any authority of law issued the untrue and false commitment set out and referred to in said return."

The cause was submitted for trial on the issues thus joined, and evidence was introduced as follows: That on April 21, 1921 appellee was received at the Indiana Reformatory under a commitment filled out on a blank form, which contained the recitals and was signed and certified as alleged in appellant's return to the writ; that said commitment recited that the judgment of conviction was rendered in "the cause of State of Indiana v. Martin Vrljich, No. 853, Grand Larceny; that the officials of the Reformatory never had received any official notice or certificate that he was convicted at any other time, or that he ever received a suspended sentence, and that no reports from him as being under a suspended sentence were ever received by them; that a certified transcript was read in evidence of the proceedings of the Lake Circuit Court in the cause entitled State of Indiana v. Martin Vljich, No. 853, reciting that an affidavit was filed charging that he...