State ex rel. Wester v. Caldwell

• Decision Date: 11 June 1947
• Docket Number: A-10810.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WESTER v. CALDWELL.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

181 P.2d 843

84 Okla.Crim. 334

STATE ex rel. WESTER v. CALDWELL.

No. A-10810.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

June 11, 1947

Original prohibition proceedings by the State of Oklahoma on the relation of Orren Wester, Sheriff of Love County, Oklahoma against John C. Caldwell, Judge of the District Court of Love County, Oklahoma, to prohibit respondent judge from proceeding with certain hearings set in connection with petitions for writs of habeas corpus by E. O. Smith and others.

Petition for writ of prohibition denied.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A writ of prohibition is a common-law writ, as a writ of prohibition is not mentioned in Oklahoma statutes.

2. The remedy under a writ of 'prohibition' is limited to cases where act sought to be prohibited is of a judicial nature, in absence of constitutional or valid statutory provision to the contrary, and is directed against the encroachment of jurisdiction by inferior courts, for the purpose of keeping such courts within the bounds prescribed for them by law.

3. Unlike a writ of 'injunction', which acts on the parties to the suit, a writ of 'prohibition' operates on the court, and the writ lies only as between courts which sustain to each other the relation of superior and inferior and cannot issue from a court to prohibit another court which is in no manner subordinate or inferior to it.

4. Writ of 'prohibition' may not issue to prevent inferior court from erroneously exercising jurisdiction, but only to prohibit proceedings as to which inferior tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction, or threatens to act in excess of jurisdiction.

5. The prerogative writ of prohibition should be issued with forbearance and caution, and only in cases of necessity, and not in a doubtful case.

6. The Supreme Court, the Criminal Court of Appeals, District and County Courts have concurrent original jurisdiction to issue Writs of Habeas Corpus.

7. Where prisoners brought from penitentiary to testify against one accused of perjury file petitions for Habeas Corpus in District Court of County where they are confined and District Judge fixes a date two weeks later for a hearing on said petition and admits prisoners to bail pending said hearing writ of prohibition will not be issued by Criminal Court of Appeals directed to District Court though state contends action of District Judge was part of scheme to free the prisoners who were held as material witnesses in order to keep them from testifying against person accused of perjury, since District Judge, even though abusing discretion in admitting prisoners from penitentiary to bail and delaying the hearing until after date set for trial of one accused of perjury, had jurisdiction to set said Petitions for Habeas Corpus for hearing to determine the cause of restraint of the prisoners.

Charles A. Milor, County Atty., of Marietta, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Sigler & Jackson of Ardmore, for respondent.

JONES Judge.

This is an original proceeding instituted by the state on relation of Orren Wester, Sheriff of Love County, to prohibit the respondent, John C. Caldwell, Judge of the District Court of Love County, from proceeding with certain hearings set in connection with the filing of petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus by E. O. Smith, H. I. Campbell and Louis Beck, in the District Court of Love County.

The verified petition alleges that in February, 1946, one Alex Rawls was charged in the District Court of Love County with the crime of attempted rape in the first degree. That at the trial of said charge, E. O. Smith, H. I. Campbell and Louis Beck testified as witnesses for Rawls in support of his alibi; that said trial resulted in a hung jury. That the said E. O. Smith, H. I. Campbell and Louis Beck later confessed that their testimony given on behalf of the defendant was false. Thereupon, charges of perjury were filed against the said E. O. Smith, H. I. Campbell and Louis Beck. That on March 30, 1946, said defendants appeared before the Honorable J. I. Goins, Judge of the District Court of Love County, entered their pleas of guilty to said charges and were thereupon sentenced to serve terms of four years each in the State Penitentiary. On April 2, 1946, the defendants Smith, Campbell and Beck were delivered to the Warden of the State Penitentiary pursuant to the sentences pronounced against them.

That charges of perjury and subornation of perjury were filed against Alex Rawls and later were set for trial in the District Court of Love County on December 4, 1946.

The petition further alleged that on November 30, 1946, at the request of the County Attorney, the District Judge Goins issued an order directing the Sheriff of Love County to proceed to the penitentiary and bring the said Smith, Campbell and Beck to Love County to be used as witnesses in the prosecution of said charges against the said Alex Rawls. Pursuant to such order of the District Court, the Warden of the penitentiary delivered Smith, Campbell and Beck to the Sheriff of Love County and they were by the said Sheriff brought to Love County and held in his custody in the County Jail for the sole purpose of appearing as witnesses in the trial of the case against the said Rawls.

The petition further alleged that on December 3, 1946, the respondent John C. Caldwell was presiding over the trial of a murder case in the District Court at Marietta in Love County. That while the respondent was presiding over said murder trial, petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus sworn to by Smith, Campbell and Beck were presented to the respondent by their counsel and the respondent immediately and without any notice to petitioner who held said prisoners for the limited purpose and pursuant to the order of the court aforesaid and also without any notice to the County Attorney, signed orders admitting each of said prisoners to bail in the sum of $1,000 and directing release of said prisoners by the petitioner upon approval of such bail by the Court Clerk and further setting said petitions for hearing on December 17, 1946. That bonds were presented to and approved by the Court Clerk and orders issued for the release of said prisoners from custody.

It is further alleged that the petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus were wholly and entirely and knowingly false and untrue, but were presented pursuant to a scheme and plan to prevent the use of said prisoners as witnesses by the state in the prosecution of said Alex Rawls. That the said Smith, Campbell and Beck were in the custody of the petitioner Orren Wester as the temporary agent of the Warden of the State Penitentiary who had the exclusive custody of said prisoners until their release from the State Penitentiary in a lawful manner.

It is further alleged that the District Court of Love County has no jurisdiction to pass upon custody of prisoners in the hands of the Warden of the State Penitentiary at McAlester, but unless he is prohibited by this court from proceeding with the hearing on said petitions that the prisoners Smith, Campbell and Beck will be by said respondent released from custody which would constitute an unauthorized application of judicial force and an exercise of judicial power not granted by law.

A response was filed to said petition in which the respondent alleges that he is the duly elected, qualified and acting District Judge in and for the Twentieth Judicial District in the State of Oklahoma, and that said judicial district comprises the counties of Carter, Love, Marshall, Johnston and Murray. That on the third day of December, 1946, he was holding court in regular session in Love County. That on said date, E. O. Smith, H. I. Campbell and Louis Beck, duly filed in the District Court of Love County their petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus and alleged that they were illegally restrained in the County Jail of Love County and in charge of Orren Wester, Sheriff of Love County who is the petitioner herein. That your respondent considered said petitions and was of the opinion it was his duty to issue an Alternative Writ of Habeas Corpus and acting upon said petitions, he issued said Alternative Writ and made it returnable on December 17, 1946.

The respondent further alleged that no motion has ever been filed before the respondent calling in question his action in said matter and that he conceived it to be his duty when a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is presented to him alleging that the petitioner is illegally restrained of his liberty and setting up facts entitling the petitioner to release from custody, to set said petition for hearing and to enter such judgment and perform such act as seems proper and lawful to him at such hearing.

The respondent further alleged that the County Attorney of Love County was present in the courtroom and agreed that the 17th day of December, 1946, should be set for the hearing and agreed that the prisoners could be released upon a bond of $1,000 pending the hearing.

The respondent further alleges that the respondent was not attempting to exceed his jurisdiction or make illegal use of judicial power. That he had jurisdiction of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and jurisdiction of the parties applying for said writs and that the Criminal Court of Appeals is without authority to issue a Writ of Prohibition preventing him from proceeding with a hearing on said petitions. An Alternative Writ of Prohibition was issued by this court prohibiting the respondent from proceeding further with said hearings pending the further order of this Court.

A hearing was held before this court and evidence was presented by both the petitioner and the respondent. At the conclusion of the hearing, the temporary order...