Wright v. Tinsley
| Decision Date | 23 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 19770,19770 |
| Parties | George WRIGHT, Plaintiff in Error, v. Harry C. TINSLEY, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Eugene Deikman, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mr. J. F. Brauer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as petitioner or by name, filed in the district court a 'Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus' alleging that defendant in error Harry C. Tinsley as Warden of the Colorado State Penitentiary, was illegally, unlawfully and unconstitutionally depriving petitioner of his liberty. Thereafter the court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, and after hearing denied the petition and dispensed with motion for a new trial. The petitioner is here by writ of error.
Petitioner's original conviction and sentence to the penitentiary for life was previously reviewed and affirmed by this court in Wright v. People, 116 Colo. 306, 181 P.2d 447, decided May 12, 1947. Petitioner alleges that during his original trial trial in addition to his conviction by a jury of forgery, uttering (forgery) and confidence game, the trial court, and not the jury, found that he was an habitual criminal by virtue of his having 'admitted his identity' in connection with counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, charged in the information detailing former felony convictions in Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming and Washington, in which numerous aliases were used. Petitioner contends that he was illegally deprived of a jury trial as to such findings of habitual criminality and that the question as to his right to jury trial on these latter counts was not considered in the previous review of his conviction in Wright v. People, supra. He makes no claim that he was not previously convicted of the felonies charged in counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the original information.
In his petition to the trial court petitioner failed to follow the provisions of C.R.S. '53, 65-1-1, which states that such a petition 'shall be accompanied by a copy of the warrant of commitment, or an affidavit that the said copy has been demanded of the person in whose custody the prisoner is detained, and by him refused or neglected to be given.' The importance of this statutory provision is immediately apparent. In our consideration of this writ of error we have nothing but the allegations of the pleadings from which to determine the specific convictions upon which the commitment was made.
Petitioner correctly argues that habeas corpus is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Broadnax
...177 Colo. 39, 493 P.2d 1086 (1972); City of Westminster v. District Court, 167 Colo. 263, 447 P.2d 537 (1968); Wright v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. 258, 365 P.2d 691 (1961)). In Cabs, Inc., we determined that arbitration under the Uniform Arbitration Act is a special statutory proceeding. 751 P.2d ......
-
Hithe v. Nelson
...proceeding. C.R.C.P. 81(a). Habeas corpus is a special statutory proceeding. C.R.S. 1963, Chapter 65, Article 1. Wright v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. 258, 365 P.2d 691. In our view, a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus does not have an unrestricted and unmodified right to discovery as provided ......
- Krueger v. Ary
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cabs, Inc., 86SA124
...177 Colo. 39, 493 P.2d 1086 (1972); City of Westminster v. District Court, 167 Colo. 236, 447 P.2d 537 (1968); Wright v. Tinsley, 148 Colo. 258, 365 P.2d 691 (1961). Arbitration is a special statutory proceeding, and the U.A.A. sets out in precise detail the rules which apply concerning con......