Specht v. Tinsley
Decision Date | 30 September 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 20703,20703 |
Citation | 153 Colo. 235,385 P.2d 423 |
Parties | Francis Eddie SPECHT, Plaintiff in Error, v. Harry C. TINSLEY, Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Francis Eddie Specht, pro se.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus Specht alleged that he was being 'illegally and unlawfully detained by respondent[Tinsley] at the Colorado State Penitentiary * * * in violation of his rights pursuant to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Colorado' and sought issuance of the writ on the following grounds:
1.That though convicted of the crime of indecent liberties as defined in C.R.S. '53, 40-2-32, he was thereafter improperly and unlawfully sentenced under C.R.S. '53, 39-19-1, et seq. to a term of not less than one day or more than life in the state penitentiary, rather than being sentenced pursuant to the statute under which he was convicted, viz.C.R.S. '53, 40-2-32, which states that the 'felonious assaulter' if over eighteen shall be confined in the penitentiary for a term of not more than ten years:
2.That even under C.R.S. '53, 39-19-1, et seq.the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him because of its alleged failure to 'arraign' him as required by C.R.S. '53, 39-19-5 (1960 Perm.Supp.);
3.That the sentence imposed is 'outside the statutory limits', inasmuch as C.R.S. '53, 39-19-1, et seq. is itself unconstitutional in that it violates:
a. The Eighth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionandArticle II section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, each of which prohibits 'cruel and unusual punishment';
b. Article III of the Colorado Constitution which prohibits the legislature from delegating a legislative power to the judiciary, and the judiciary in turn from thereafter delegating the judicial power to fix and determine a sentence to the executive department, i. e. the Parole Board; and
c. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the due process clause of the Colorado Constitution, i. e. Article II, section 26.
At the outset it should be noted that C.R.S. '53, 65-1-1 provides inter alia that '[t]he court or judge to whom the application is made shall forthwith award the writ of habeas corpus, unless it shall appear from the petition itself, or from the documents annexed, that the party can neither be discharged nor admitted to bail, nor in any other manner relieved.'Here, however, the trial court in the first instance neither issued the writ nor denied the issuance thereof, but rather chose to order the respondent, Warden Tinsley, to show cause 'why a writ of Habeas Corpus should not issue.'
In due time the respondent in response to the order to show cause filed an answer and the petitioner a reply thereto, whereupon the trial court then denied the petition and refused to issue the writ.By writ of error Specht now seeks reversal of the judgment.
Habeas corpus is not intended to take the place of review by writ of error, and the fact that one may be improperly or unlawfully confined 'for any criminal or supposed criminal matter' does not, ipso facto, entitle him to be 'discharged' or 'admitted to bail' or in 'any other manner relieved' through the use of habeas corpus.In Colorado, habeas corpus historically has been available to one who has been committed in a criminal proceeding only when one or more of the following situations exist:
1.The sentencing court had no jurisdiction of the person of the accused; or 2.The sentencing court had no jurisdiction of the crime alleged in the information or indictment; or
3.The sentence imposed was not 'within the prescribed statutory...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
People v. White
...4 We hold that indeterminate sentencing under the C.S.O.A. does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See, e.g., Raullerson v. People, 157 Colo. 462, 404 P.2d 149 (1965); Specht v. People, 156 Colo. 12, 396 P.2d 838 (1964);
Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423 (1963)(reversed on other grounds, Specht v. Patterson, The judgment of the district court is affirmed. QUINN, J., does not participate. 1 Since repealed and reenacted in different formTrueblood v. Tinsley, supra. We have held the primary purpose of the statute to be the protection of members of the public from proven dangerous sex offenders. Trueblood v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. at 507, 366 P.2d at 658; see also Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423 (1963)(overruled on other grounds in Specht v. Patterson, supra). This is a legitimate legislative objective and the statute is rationally related to the accomplishment of this The defendant claims the statuteequal protection grounds on numerous occasions and have been uniformly upheld. See Vanderhoof v. People, supra; Trueblood v. Tinsley, supra; Specht v. People, 156 Colo. 12, 396 P.2d 838 (1964); Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423 (1963)(overruled on other grounds in Specht v. Patterson, As has recently been restated in People v. McKnight, 626 P.2d 678, 683 (Colo.1981): "Equal protection prohibits a state from enacting a statute which prescribes... -
Saxton v. Patterson, 9027.
...Procedure 37 and 39. We have not been advised as to the disposition of the motion in the Adams County District Court.1 Later Saxton instituted habeas corpus proceedings in the Supreme Court of Colorado, which were dismissed for the reason that habeas corpus is not available as a substitute for review by writ of error.
Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423; Henry v. Tinsley, 10 Cir., 344 F.2d It is apparent that Saxton has not exhausted his state remedies in either of the... -
Johnson v. Tinsley
...for the extreme sentence imposed on Johnson is before us.' Relief in this regard may not come from this Court, but only from the Governor through the exercise of his power of executive clemency. The remaining matters sought to be raised by Johnson in his petition, such as the sufficiency of the evidence, for example, may not be raised in a proceeding such as the instant one, habeas corpus not being a substitute for review by writ of error.
Specht v. Tinsley, Colo., 385 P.2d 423. The... -
Smith v. Tinsley
...limited remedy in Colorado. It is not available for an alleged denial of due process occasioned by a faulty arraignment or a coerced plea. As the Colorado Supreme Court has again made clear in one of its recent opinions,
Specht v. Tinsley, Colo., 385 P.2d 423 (1963): "Habeas corpus is not intended to take the place of review by writ of error, and the fact that one may be improperly or unlawfully confined `for any criminal or supposed criminal matter' does not, ipso facto, entitlelimits', be it as to the sentence proper or the designated place of incarceration. "See Lowe v. People, 139 Colo. 578, 342 P.2d 631; Freeman v. Tinsley, 135 Colo. 62, 308 P.2d 220 and Stilley v. Tinsley, Colo., 385 P.2d 677." 385 P.2d at 424-425. State habeas corpus is conceded by the Attorney General of Colorado, arguing for the respondent in this action, to be an irrelevant and inadequate remedy for the alleged denial of due process. As he stated in his "* * *...