Tuggle v. Page, A--14113

• Decision Date: 26 April 1967
• Docket Number: No. A--14113,A--14113
• Parties: Fred Duane TUGGLE, Petitioner, v. Ray H. PAGE, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, The District Court of Cherokee County, Oklahoma, and The State of Oklahoma, Respondents.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 439

427 P.2d 439

Fred Duane TUGGLE, Petitioner, v. Ray H. PAGE, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, The

District Court of Cherokee County, Oklahoma, and

The State of Oklahoma, Respondents.

No. A--14113.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 26, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The writ of habeas corpus is limited to cases in which the judgment and sentence is clearly void.

2. Where a petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed, the burden is upon the petitioner to sustain the allegations thereof, and every presumption favors the regularity of the proceedings had in the trial court.

3. Where a prisoner in custody under sentence of conviction seeks to be discharged on habeas corpus, inquiry is limited to the questions of whether the court in which the prisoner was convicted had jurisdiction of the person of defendant and of the crime charged, and whether the court had jurisdiction to render the particular judgment and sentence.

4. Where a disputed question arises as to what occurred upon arraignment of one accused of crime, great weight will be given to the recitations of the minutes of the trial court.

Original proceeding in which Fred Duane Tuggle seeks release from confinement in the State Penitentiary. Writ denied.

Fred Duane Tuggle, pro se.

G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., Hugh H. Collum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

BRETT, Judge.

This is an original proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus by Fred Duane Tuggle, petitioner, wherein he seeks release from the custody of Ray H. Page, Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. The said custody, as the records disclose, is based upon the facts that petitioner was charged on June 15, 1959 in case No. 2402 in the District Court of Cherokee County with the murder of Cecil Truitt; and on the same date in case No. 2403 was charged with the murder of Charles Truitt, both occurring on May 17, 1959, in Cherokee County.

The records show that petitioner was represented by two able attorneys at his preliminary hearing before the county judge, sitting as an examining magistrate; and at his arraignment in the district court, at which time he entered his plea of guilty to each of said charges. His pleas were accepted by the court, and the defendant, petitioner here, was sentenced in each case to life imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. No motion to quash or plea in abatement, or any other attack on the court's jurisdiction was presented.

Where the defendant is arraigned on an information and pleads to the merits, he waives all rights to complain of any irregularities in the preliminary examination. Neff v. State, 39 Okl.Cr. 133, 264 P. 649.

Due to the age of this defendant at the time these crimes were committed, the fact that he has made a model prisoner, and at this time is performing responsible work at the penitentiary, we have given special attention to his petition, which he files without the assistance of counsel. This petitioner has been permitted to appear in person before this Court on two occasions, and has testified before the Court. We thereafter required the Attorney General, representing the Warden and the State, to furnish certified copies of all documents and proceedings had in the original trials. We have carefully considered these files, as well as the petition and brief of the petitioner.

This Court has repeatedly held that the writ of habeas corpus is limited to cases in which the judgment and sentence is clearly void. Ex parte Matthews, 85 Okl.Cr. 173, 186 P.2d 840; Ex parte West, 62 Okl.Cr. 260, 71 P.2d 129; Ex parte Cartwright, 88 Okl.Cr. 206, 201 P.2d 935, and...