Williams v. State, 7 Div. 700

Citation42 Ala.App. 140,155 So.2d 322
Decision Date23 April 1963
Docket Number7 Div. 700
PartiesCharles W. WILLIAMS v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Charles W. Williams, pro se.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Geo. D. Mentz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

JOHNSON, Judge.

Appellant, Charles W. Williams, who, according to his petition, is on parole from the Alabama State Penitentiary where he was incarcerated under a judgment of conviction by the Shelby County Circuit Court for the offense of first degree murder, maintains this appeal from a judgment from the Circuit Court of Talladega County denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to G. Preston Bryant, Parole Supervisor of the Huntsville, Alabama, Probation Office.

Habeas corpus is not a state court remedy available to a parolee in Alabama, who is not otherwise under detention.

'It should always be borne in mind that the applicant for the writ of habeas corpus is not entitled to the writ unless he is actually restrained of his liberty. * * * Mere moral restraint (such as a military arrest, confinement to quarters, or parole, for example), as distinguished from actual confinement, is generally insufficient to warrant issuance of the writ. * * *' Habeas Corpus, State and Federal, Judge Walter B. Jones, The Alabama Lawyer, Oct., 1952, p. 384.

'An actual or physical restraint, and not a mere moral one, is necessary to warrant interference by habeas corpus; but any restraint which precludes freedom from action is sufficient, and actual confinement in jail is unnecessary. Persons under bail are not restrained of their liberty, so as to be entitled to a discharge on habeas corpus.' Palmer v. State, 170 Ala. 102, 51 So. 271. Shuttlesworth v. State, 151 So.2d 734, reh. den. Feb. 19, 1963.

'* * * it seems that, as a general rule, a person placed on parole is not considered as being restrained of his liberty to such a degree as to be entitled to the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus. * * * Ex parte Davis (1915) 11 Okla Crim Rep 403, 146 P 1085; Ex parte Kirk (1919) 16 Okla Crim Rep 722, 185 P 706; Ex parte Cindle (1941) 71 Okla Crim Rep 135, 109 P(2d) 519; Re Whisenhuit [Whisenhunt] (1942) 75 Okla Crim Rep 313, 131 P(2d) 134; Ex parte Dumas (1939) 137 Tex Crim Rep 524, 132 SW(2d) 883.' 148 A.L.R. 1244. Parolee's right to habeas corpus, 148 A.L.R. 1243.

Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285, which deals only with 28 U.S.C., Section 2241, does not apply...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Sabisch v. Moyer, 6, Sept. Term, 2019
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • November 20, 2019
    ...habeas corpus relief because his "liberty [was] no longer being restrained in view of his release on parole.").In Williams v. State, 42 Ala.App. 140, 155 So.2d 322, 323 (1963), the Court of Appeals of Alabama held that "[h]abeas corpus is not a [S]tate court remedy available to a parolee in......
  • Caton v. State
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • October 2, 2015
    ...Elliott, 746 S.W.2d 762 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) ; Monohan v. Burdman, 84 Wash.2d 922, 530 P.2d 334 (1975). But see, Williams v. State, 42 Ala.App. 140, 155 So.2d 322 (1963) ; Sorrow v. Vickery, 228 Ga. 191, 184 S.E.2d 462 (1971) ; People ex rel. Williams v. Morris, 44 Ill.App.3d 39, 357 N.E.2d ......
  • Caton v. State
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • October 2, 2015
    ...parte Elliott, 746 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. Crim. 1988); Monohan v. Burdman, 84 Wash. 2d 922, 530 P.2d 334 (1975). But see, Williams v. State, 42 Ala. App. 140, 155 So. 2d 322 (1963); Sorrow v. Vickery, 228 Ga. 191, 184 S.E.2d 462 (1971); People ex rel. Williams v. Morris, 44 Ill. App. 3d 39, 357 N......
  • Ex parte Boykins
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 20, 2002
    ...of the present holding of the petitioner." (citing Adams v. State, 30 Ala.App. 487, 8 So.2d 219 (1942))); Williams v. State, 42 Ala.App. 140, 140, 155 So.2d 322, 323 (1963)("`It should always be borne in mind that the applicant for the writ of habeas corpus is not entitled to the writ unles......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT