State ex rel. Ingram v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 05 January 1968 |
| Parties | , 220 Tenn. 676 STATE of Tennessee ex rel. Sam INGRAM, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Charles J. Cassell, Memphis, for plaintiff in error.
George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., and Paul E. Jennings, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal in error from a denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Criminal Court of Shelby County, Tennessee. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the lower court; that is, plaintiff in error Sam Ingram as petitioner, and defendant in error as the State.
On March 28, 1966, the petitioner was convicted, on a plea of guilty, in the Criminal Court of Shelby County, of unlawful carnal knowledge of a female under twelve years of age, and assault and battery with intent to rape. He was sentenced to twenty-five years in the State Penitentiary.
On January 29, 1967, the petitioner filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus. An evidentiary hearing was held in the Criminal Court of Shelby County, on February 23, 1967. The petition was dismissed and an appeal perfected to this Court.
The assignments of error on this appeal are directed toward the manner in which the petitioner was sentenced upon the entry of his guilty plea. It is contended that, following his plea of guilty, no evidence was introduced before the jury hearing the case to assist them in fixing the punishment. Petitioner relies on the language of T.C.A. § 40--2310, which provides:
'Upon the plea of guilty, when the punishment is confinement in the penitentiary, a jury shall be impaneled to hear the evidence and fix the time of confinement, unless otherwise expressly provided by this Code.'
It is pertinent to first observe that the failure to comply with a statute governing trial proceedings is not per se a violation of any constitutional right. Clearly, no Federal constitutional right is presented in this case. There is no requirement in the Federal system or that of numerous States similar to that prescribed by Tennessee statute. If there was error in this regard, such was not an abridgement of the petitioner's constitutional rights, nor was it of a nature which would void the judgment of the lower court for any other reason.
It has long been the established law of Tennessee that the writ of habeas corpus constitutes a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Momon v State
... ... State ex rel. Barnes v. Henderson, 423 S.W.2d 479, 502, 220 Tenn. 719, 730 (Tenn. 1968). To ensure that defense ... ...
-
Mitchell v. State
...assail the constitutional validity of the petitioner's conviction is a collateral attack on the prior judgment. State ex rel. Ingram v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 676, 423 S.W.2d 479; Bomar v. State ex rel. Stewart, 201 Tenn. 480, 300 S.W.2d In this State such a suit is a civil action. State ex r......
-
State, Dept. of Highways v. Urban Estates, Inc.
... ... 427 ... 'These stipulations will be rigidly enforced by the courts of this State. State ex rel. Weldon v. Thomason, 142 Tenn. 527, 221 S.W. 491; Tucker v. International Salt Co., 209 Tenn. 95, ... State ... ex rel. Barnes v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 719, 423 S.W.2d 479 (1967) ... 'It seems that constitutional provisions intended to ... ...
-
State ex rel. Adams v. Norvell
...not rise to constitutional stature. See State ex rel. Edmondson v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 605, 421 S.W.2d 635; State ex rel. Ingram v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 676, 423 S.W.2d 479; State ex rel. Barnes v. Henderson, 220 Tenn. 719, 423 S.W.2d 497; State ex rel. Crumpler v. Henderson, Tenn.Crim.App......