State v. Morales
| Decision Date | 14 July 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 7292,7292 |
| Citation | 90 Ariz. 11,363 P.2d 606 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Luis Mendoza MORALES, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Joseph H. Soble, Tucson, for appellant.
Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., and John A. Murphy, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant applied for writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Pinal on the ground of double jeopardy which was denied. An appeal followed to this Court.
It has been the unfailing rule in this State that the writ of habeas corpus may be used only to review matters affecting the jurisdiction of the court. State ex rel. Jones v. Superior Court, 78 Ariz. 367, 280 P.2d 691. Double jeopardy may be waived and may not be raised for the first time in a collateral proceeding. Bracey v. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 93 F.2d 8. The record shows that Morales pleaded guilty to the crime of petty theft, in the Justice Court of Santa Cruz County. Thereafter, he was sentenced in the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County on a plea of guilty to the charge of burglary to the state penitentiary. The record does not disclose that appellant presented and claim of double jeopardy to the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County in which he was sentenced.
We said in State v. Henderson, 34 Ariz. 430, 272 P. 97, 98:
"It has never been the office of the writ of habeas corpus to operate as a writ of review, and we take it that no well-considered case can be found where it has been held that the writ may properly be used to review the judgment of a court where the judgment sought to be reviewed had been rendered by a court which had jurisdiction of the person and subject-matter of the suit in which the judgment had been rendered * * *."
The order of the Superior Court of Pinal County is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mojarro Padilla
...may proceed in the criminal action. Second, habeas corpus may not be used to test the question of double jeopardy. State v. Morales, 90 Ariz. 11, 363 P.2d 606 (1961). WAS IT ERROR TO REFUSE TO FURNISH AN EXPERT IN THE SPANISH LANGUAGE? This court has had the question of the necessity for th......
-
State v. Millanes
...the failure to raise the issue in the trial court has no application to a claim of double jeopardy. The state cites State v. Morales, 90 Ariz. 11, 363 P.2d 606 (1961); State v. Adamson, 140 Ariz. 198, 680 P.2d 1259 (App.1984); and State v. Veres, 7 Ariz.App. 117, 436 P.2d 629 (1968), cert. ......
-
State v. Veres
...The Arizona Supreme Court has several times considered the issue of double jeopardy, three of the cases being: State v. Morales, 90 Ariz. 11, 363 P.2d 606 (1961); State v. Burruell, 98 Ariz. 37, 401 P.2d 733 (1965); and Dowthard. In Morales, the Supreme Court observed (90 Ariz. at page 12, ......
-
State v. Corrales
...Court stated that double jeopardy may be waived and cannot be raised for the first time in a collateral proceeding. State v. Morales, 90 Ariz. 11, 363 P.2d 606. In State v. Veres, 7 Ariz.App. 117, 436 P.2d 629 (1968), after appellant's jury was selected, defense counsel moved to continue be......