Sisson v. State
| Decision Date | 05 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. A-14203.,A-14203. |
| Parties | Noah SISSON, #40431, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma and Ray Page, Warden of the State Penitentiary, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Noah Sisson, pro se.
G.T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
This is an original proceeding in which Noah Sisson seeks his discharge from confinement in the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, where he is currently serving a term of life imprisonment for the crime of Rape. Said judgment and sentence was pronounced against him by the District Judge of Payne County on the 2nd day of November, 1939.
Petitioner seeks his release from confinement for the following reasons:
(1) That at his arraignment in the District Court he was not represented by counsel, at which time he entered a plea of Not Guilty, and
(2) That the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose the judgment and sentence against said petitioner for the reason that he had never been indicted by a grand jury.
We are of the opinion that neither of these propositions are meritorious for it affirmatively appears that immediately after Noah Sisson was arraigned in the District Court and entered a plea of Not Guilty, the trial court appointed two capable members of the Payne County bar to advise with the petitioner and that subsequent thereto, the petitioner withdrew his plea of Not Guilty and entered a plea of Guilty after having the advice of competent counsel.
The second proposition has been passed on many times by this Court. In the early case of In re McNaught, 1 Okl.Cr. 528, 99 P. 241, in an opinion dealing exhaustively with this contention, this Court concluded that under Article 2, § 17 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, prosecutions may be by indictment or information as they are alternative modes and that a prosecution by information does not violate either the 14th or 5th amendment of the Constitution of the United States. See also Berryman v. State, Okl. Cr., 283 P.2d 558; Pieiro v. Turner, 95 Okl.Cr. 425, 247 P.2d 291; Jordan v. Turner, 95 Okl.Cr. 307, 245 P.2d 748.
For the reasons above set forth the writ prayed for is denied. Writ denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. State, F--75--474
...no violation of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by electing one over the other, Sisson v. State, Okl.Cr., 426 P.2d 379 (1967); Stevenson v. State, supra. This covers equal protection as well as due process. The underlying concept of the equal protection ......
-
Jones v. State
...no violation of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by electing one over the other, Sisson v. State, Okl.Cr., 426 P.2d 379 (1967); Stevenson v. State, [486 P.2d 646 (Okl.Cr.1971) ]. This covers equal protection as well as due process. The underlying concept ......
-
Sisson v. Page, Civ. No. 67-321.
... ... at his first District Court arraignment, (2) Sentence was imposed by duress, coercion and threat of lynch mob, (3) Petitioner was denied confrontation of witnesses, (4) No mental observation was made of the Petitioner until after he was sentenced, and (5) Petitioner was extradited from the State of Texas to the State of Oklahoma without extradition papers. The burden of proof herein is on the Petitioner. Beeler v. Crouse (Tenth Cir. 1964), 332 F.2d 783 ... The Respondent acknowledges that the Petitioner has exhausted his state remedies on each of the above complaints ... ...
-
Bennett v. State
...section in relation to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, this Court stated in Sisson v. State, Okl.Cr., 426 P.2d 379: 'The second proposition has been passed on many times by this Court. In the early case of In re McNaught, 1 Okl.Cr. 528, 99 P. 24......