State ex rel. Sorensen v. Baird
Decision Date | 21 April 1954 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. SORENSEN v. BAIRD. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Hugh B. Collins, Medford, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Paul W. Haviland, Medford.
Warren A. Woodruff, Dep. Dist. Atty., Roseburg, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Robert M. Stults, Dist. Atty., Roseburg.
Before LATOURETTE, C. J., and WARNER, LUSK and TOOZE, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas county, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. The proceeding was instituted by Shirley L. Sorensen, on behalf of her husband Charles L. Sorensen, as plaintiff, against C. H. Baird, as sheriff of Douglas county, Oregon, as defendant.
The petition for the writ alleged facts sufficient to authorize the issuance of the writ, and, by order of the court, the writ was issued on May 14, 1953, and served upon the defendant sheriff.
On May 15, 1953, the defendant filed his return to the writ, in which it is alleged (omitting formal parts):
'1. That the defendant is the duly elected, qualified and acting sheriff of Douglas County, Oregon, and makes this return in his official capacity as such sheriff.
'2. That the defendant presently has the person of Charles Lowell Sorensen in his custody in the County Jail of Douglas County, Oregon.
'3. That the said Charles Lowell Sorensen on the 30th day of March, 1953, appeared in the District Court of the State of Oregon for Douglas County in person and represented by his attorney, Edward M. Murphy, and was then and there duly convicted upon his plea of guilty fo the crime of furnishing a Minor with Alcoholic Liquor and was then and there assessed a fine of Seventy-five ($75.00) Dollars and sentenced to be confined in the Douglas County jail for a period of thirty (30) days. That the said Charles Lowell Sorensen was then and there placed on probation for a period of six (6) months upon the terms and conditions that he shall at all places and at all times conduct himself in an exemplary manner, that he refrain from the use of any intoxicating liquor, that he refrain from entering or loitering about any place where intoxicating liquors are sold or kept and that he comply with all local, county and state laws during the said period of probation.
'4. That thereafter and on the 14th day of May, 1953, the said Charles Lowell Sorensen was arrested upon a warrant issued by the Honorable A. J. Geddes, District Judge, charging him, the said Charles Lowell Sorensen, with Violation of the Probation granted to him on March 30, 1953. That on May 14, 1953, a hearing was held in the District Court of the State of Oregon for Douglas County to determine whether or not the probation granted the said Charles Lowell Sorensen on the 30th day of March, 1953, should be revoked and the following order was entered:
'5. That following said hearing and the issuance of the order set out above an order of commitment was issued by the said A. J. Geddes, District Judge, directing me to commit the said Charles Lowell Sorensen to the Douglas County Jail to serve the sentence imposed upon him on March 30, 1953. A copy of said order of commitment is attached to this return, marked 'Exhibit A' and by this reference made a part hereof.
Attached to the return were exhibits 'A' and 'B', being copies of what purported to be commitment orders as alleged in the return.
Plaintiff demurred to the return on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute cause or justification for the prisoner's detention. The demurrer was overruled by the court, whereupon plaintiff filed a replication in which she denied each and every allegation of the return, excepting only paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof.
Upon the issues thus formed by the return of defendant and replication (answer) of plaintiff, a hearing was held by the court. In support of the return's allegations, defendant offered, and there were received in evidence, a copy of the journal of the district court, the original 'Order Revoking Probation', and a copy of each commitment order above referred to. No other evidence was offered or received, except a transcript of the testimony given before the district court in connection with the purported revocation of probation. This testimony has no bearing whatever upon the issue now before the court.
The exemplification of the journal of said district court above referred to is in words and figures as follows:
'The State of Oregon, Plaintiff
v.
Charles Lowell Sorensen, Defendant.
Criminal Cases Dockets Nos. 8694 and 986; No. 8694: Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor: No. 986: furnishing minor with alcoholic liquor:
Arraignments: Pleas: Penalties, and Sentences:
* * *
* * *
'No. 8694 Filed on December 27, 1952; Defendant arraigned on same date; defendant waiving Preliminary Hearing and desirous of going before Circuit Judge on Information of the District Attorney.
'Any violation of the foregoing provisions of the parole will necessitate the defendant being required...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McClaflin v. Wright
...306 Or. 196, 202, 759 P.2d 1049 (1988). Its function was complete when it secured the issuance of a writ. State ex rel. Sorensen v. Baird, 201 Or. 240, 247, 269 P.2d 535 (1954). That technical inaccuracy aside, defendant misreads the basis for our holding in Miller. As we recently explained......
-
Bedell v. Schiedler
...in habeas corpus actions; petitions should be construed liberally and not voided for mere technical defects. State ex rel. Sorensen v. Baird, 201 Or. 240, 247, 269 P.2d 535 (1954); see ORS 34.680. If the writ issues, the petition ordinarily ceases to have any function and is not considered ......
-
Bird v. Maass
...petition may be informal, if the defects are minor. Gage v. Maass, 306 Or. 196, 202, 759 P.2d 1049 (1988); State ex rel. Sorensen v. Baird, 201 Or. 240, 247-48, 269 P.2d 535 (1954). When a petition is filed, the court must review it immediately. If it appears from the petition and any docum......
-
Gage v. Maass
...a replication. When the writ issued, the petition ceased to have any function. As this court stated in State ex rel. Sorensen v. Baird, 201 Or. 240, 247-48, 269 P.2d 535 (1954): "The function of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is to secure the issuance of the writ, and when that is i......