State v. Eason, s. 4165, 4166.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1940 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 4165, 4166.,s. 4165, 4166. |
| Citation | 143 S.W.2d 22 |
| Parties | STATE v. EASON. STATE v. FLETCHER. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Arkansas County; Lawrence C. Auten, on exchange, Judge.
Habeas corpus proceedings by Harvey Eason and Hollis Fletcher against the State to be released from prison. From judgments releasing the petitioners from prison, the State appeals.
Reversed with directions.
Jack Holt, Atty. Gen., and Jno. P. Streepey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Peyton D. Moncrief and C. N. Carpenter, both of DeWitt, and A. G. Meehan and John W. Moncrief, both of Stuttgart, for appellees.
Appellees were released from prison in consequence of a hearing initiated through writs of habeas corpus. The state prosecutes this appeal.
Eason was convicted of grand larceny, committed by stealing pigs. The prison sentence of one year was affirmed October 2, 1939. Eason v. State, 198 Ark. 885, 132 S.W.2d 5. This court's mandate issued November 3, 1939.
Fletcher, convicted of stealing cattle, likewise received a sentence of one year in prison. On appeal the lower court was affirmed May 22, 1939. Fletcher v. State, 198 Ark. 376, 128 S.W.2d 997 (mandate July 7, 1939).
In the petitions for writs of habeas corpus it was alleged that judgments of the Arkansas circuit court were void because of the failure of the prosecuting attorney to sign the informations which were filed in lieu of indictments. Affirmatively, it was alleged that such informations were executed by the deputy prosecuting attorney in his own name.
The circuit judge, strictly construing the language in Johnson v. State, Ark., 133 S. W.2d 15, 18, held that the petitioners were being illegally restrained of their liberty, and directed their discharge.
In the Johnson case it was said: "Our conclusion is that under Amendment No. 21 to the Constitution the deputy prosecuting attorney must, if he files information, file it in the name of the prosecuting attorney, and that the information filed in this case was void".
At trial Johnson questioned sufficiency of the information, insisting, through his attorneys, that the court could not acquire jurisdiction until an indictment (or until information subscribed to by the prosecuting attorney) had been filed. In holding that the court erred in refusing to quash the information, the word "void" appears. As applied to the case then being reviewed, the information was defective...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van v. Hobbs
...error, it should have been addressed in the trial court. Davis v. State, 2011 Ark. 88 (per curiam); see also State v. Eason & Fletcher, 200 Ark. 112, 143 S.W.2d 22 (1940). A nonjurisdictional challenge to the sufficiency of aninformation must be raised prior to trial. See Ray v. State, 344 ......
-
Murry v. Hobbs
...prosecuting attorney, signed and filed it, and there had been no grand-jury proceeding to validate the charge. In State v. Eason & Fletcher, 200 Ark. 112, 143 S.W.2d 22 (1940), this court held that an information filed in the name of a deputy was voidable, rather than void. We saidThere is ......
-
Davis v. Straughn, No. CV-19-806
...Ark. Code Ann. § 16-21-113(c)(1) (Repl. 1999)); see Martindale v. Honey, 259 Ark. 416, 533 S.W.2d 198 (1976); see also State v. Eason, 200 Ark. 1112, 143 S.W.2d 22 (1940) (There is, prima facie, a presumption that a deputy prosecuting attorney acts under direction of his superior, and, unti......
-
Benson v. Payne
...was not within the purview of habeas proceedings. Randle v. Straughn, 2020 Ark. 117, 595 S.W.3d 361 (citing State v. Eason & Fletcher, 200Ark. 1112, 143 S.W.2d 22 (1940)). The circuit court did not clearly err when it rejected Benson's claim for habeas relief as not cognizable. Affirmed. WE......