The State v. Buckner
| Decision Date | 31 December 1921 |
| Citation | 234 S.W. 651,291 Mo. 320 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. THOMAS B. BUCKNER, Judge of Circuit Court |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Writ granted.
Frank B. Fulkerson for plaintiff.
(1) Territorial jurisdiction is lacking. The confinement, by an officer of a prisoner, both officer and prisoner being in a county beyond the limits of Judge Buckner's judicial circuit, bars his right to interfere with a writ of habeas corpus. Secs. 22, 23 and 24, Art. 6, Mo. Constitution; Sec 1877, R. S. 1919. (2) That there are territorial limitations to a circuit judge's power to issue the writ of habeas corpus, is shown by the Habeas Corpus Act itself. Sec. 1880 R. S. 1919. (3) A circuit judge's power to issue writs of habeas corpus is limited territorially, just the same as his right to grant and terminate paroles is limited. Secs. 4155 4156, 1877, R. S. 1919. The wording of the above statutes is such that if thereunder a construction can be found to justify defendant in his action in this case, sufficient authority can also be found to authorize him in granting paroles and terminating same in this or any other judicial circuit in the State. The statement of the possibilities of such construction condemns it. (4) No proper notice of the intended application for writ having been given the State Judge Buckner was without power to issue his pretended writ of habeas corpus. Sec. 1944, R. S. 1919; Ex parte Shoffner, 173 Mo.App. 403; Ex parte Gaume, 162 Mo. 390. (5) Judges Rich and Buckner, being judges of equal rank, and presiding over courts of coordinate powers and jurisdiction, in the matter of issuing writs of habeas corpus, the latter judge has no power to review the judgment of the former under a writ of habeas corpus. Judicial comity would require that Judge Buckner keep his hands off. State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 182; State ex rel. v. Ware, 129 Mo. 619; State ex rel. Walker v. Murphy, 132 Mo. 382. (6) Application for a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to prevent the execution of a final judgment. State v. Collins, 225 Mo. 633.
Lyons & Ristine and James L. Roberts for defendant.
(1) The Circuit Court of Jackson County is a constitutional court of general jurisdiction and is given power to hear and determine writs of habeas corpus, both by the Constitution and statutes in such cases made and provided, with but one exception, to-wit: If petitioner is held under criminal process in any county, his application in the first instance shall be to the judge of the circuit court for the county in which the applicant is held in custody, if, at the time such judge be in the county. In this case the circuit judge, at the time of making application, was outside the county in which applicant was being held. The Constitution and statutes contain no limitations as to judicial circuits or counties, nor residence of applicant or respondent Sec. 26, Art 3, Mo. Const.; Art. 3, Mo. Const.; Secs. 22, 24 and 29, Art 6, Mo. Const.; Secs. 1876, 1877, 1942 and 1944, R. S. 1919; In re Webers, 275 Mo. 677, 682; In re Clark, 208 Mo. 121, 142; In re Breck, 252 Mo. 302. 320; Ex parte Gaume. 162 Mo. 390; Ex parte Shoffner, 173 Mo.App. 403. (2) Each circuit judge is a judicial officer of the State; the circuit is simply the territorial unit of his creation and the territorial unit of all circuit courts is the county. The circuit courts are constitutional courts and as such have general jurisdiction and may issue process directed to any part of the State. State ex rel. v. Railway, 270 Mo. 251, 257; Railway v. Gildersleeve, 219 Mo. 170, 176; Art. 3, Mo. Const.; Secs. 22, 24, 29, Art. 6, Mo. Const. (3) Every person restrained of his liberty within this State may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus by making application by petition to some court of record in term or any judge thereof in vacation, and every writ of habeas corpus shall be in the name of the State of Missouri directed to the officer or person by whom the party to be relieved is imprisoned, and if the officer or person upon whom the writ of habeas corpus shall be duly served and shall refuse or neglect to obey the same, the court or officer before whom such writ shall have been returnable shall upon due proof of service thereof, forthwith issue an attachment against the delinquent, directed to the sheriff of any county within this State, demanding him forthwith to apprehend such delinquent, and such delinquent shall be committed to close custody in the jail of the county in which the court or officer shall be until he complies with such writ, and if the delinquent be a sheriff the attachment may be directed to any coroner or person to be designated therein, and such sheriff may be committed to the jail of any county other than his own pending final judgment upon the writ. Secs. 1876, 1877, 1881, 1885, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1920 and 1925, R. S. 1919. (4) The writ of habeas corpus is a special proceeding and the general provisions of the code of civil procedure are not applicable, but the Missouri Constitution, and Chapter 13, Article 6, R. S. 1919, govern in such cases. Sec. 1942, R. S. 1919; State ex rel. v. Locker, 266 Mo. 384, 393; State v. Cook, 201 S.W. 361; Secs. 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182 and 1183, R. S. 1919. (5) The Criminal Court of Lafayette County is a court of limited jurisdiction, and the circuit court exercises superintending control over it. Secs. 23 and 31, Art. 6, Mo. Const.; Ex parte O'Brien, 127 Mo. 477. (6) The Sheriff of Lafayette County could not produce, and did not have, a warrant, commitment or other legal process authorizing him to hold the petitioner for writ of habeas corpus. Sec. 4060, R. S. 1919; Ex parte Campbell, 197 S.W. 1058. (7) A final judgment may be examined and inquired into under a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Creasy, 243 Mo. 679, 696; Ex parte Lerner, 218 S.W. 331; Hartman v. Henry, 217 S.W. 987. (8) Jurisdiction over the parties involved in the writ of habeas corpus was conferred upon the Circuit Court of Jackson County, by the voluntary appearances therein of said parties for purposes other than raising jurisdictional questions. Orear v. Clough, 52 Mo. 55; Brewery Co. v. Forgery, 140 Mo.App. 605; Secs. 1226 and 1230, R. S. 1919. (9) Where the prosecuting attorney has actual notice that application for writ will be made the formal notice required by the statute is unnecessary. State ex rel. v. Wurdeman, 254 Mo. 561, 579. (10) On a proper application any court is charged with the duty of issuing a writ of habeas corpus and examining into the case sufficiently to determine the merits thereof and its jurisdiction. Ex parte Weber, 197 S.W. 850; Ex parte Nelson, 251 Mo. 63, 157 S.W. 794.
REEVES, C. Railey and White, CC., concur.
Prohibition.
Prohibition against Thomas B. Buckner, one of the judges of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to prevent him from interfering by writ of habeas corpus with the execution of a sentence of imprisonment against one Walter McFaddin pronounced by the Criminal Court of Lafayette County.
Upon the application of the said McFaddin, defendant Buckner granted a writ of habeas corpus commanding the Sheriff of Lafayette County to release on bail said McFaddin, who was then confined in jail.
McFaddin had theretofore pleaded guilty in the Criminal Court of Lafayette County to a charge of keeping a common gambling house, and had received sentence both to pay a fine and to serve a term in jail. He paid the fine and was paroled as to the jail sentence. Subsequently the judge of the criminal court, as was his right, terminated the parole and ordered the execution of the jail sentence. While serving this sentence, application was made for his discharge by writ of habeas corpus. It was alleged in the application that Judge Rich, Judge of the Criminal Court of Lafayette County, was not within the county at the time, and upon that ground the application was made to the defendant. Defendant granted the writ, whereupon the Prosecuting Attorney of Lafayette County applied here for a writ of prohibition to restrain the defendant from usurpation of judicial authority. Upon the petition, this court made a preliminary rule or order upon defendant to show cause, and return was duly made by him, to which plaintiff, through the Prosecuting Attorney of Lafayette County, filed a motion to quash. The case pends on the question as to whether or not the defendant, as one of the judges of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, is clothed with authority to grant a writ of habeas corpus to discharge a prisoner held under process of the Criminal Court of Lafayette County.
We judicially notice that Jackson County constitutes the 16th Judicial Circuit of Missouri, that Lafayette and Saline counties constitute the 15th Judicial Circuit of Missouri and that there is a Criminal Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. The Criminal Court and Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit have jurisdiction of civil and criminal matters arising in said circuit. Section 1, Article VI, of the Constitution, provides for the vesting of all judicial power of the State, both as to matters of law and equity, in the various courts of the State, including circuit courts, and Section 22 of the same article defines the jurisdiction of circuit courts to be ...
To continue reading
Request your trial