Wright v. Tinsley, 19770

Docket NºNo. 19770
Citation365 P.2d 691, 148 Colo. 258
Case DateOctober 23, 1961
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Page 691

365 P.2d 691
148 Colo. 258
George WRIGHT, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
Harry C. TINSLEY, Defendant in Error.
No. 19770.
Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department.
Oct. 23, 1961.

[148 Colo. 259] 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.

DAY, Justice.

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[148 Colo. 260] 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.

Page 692

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Broadnax, Nos. 91SA175
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 23, 1992
    ...Hansen, 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. 7......
  • Hithe v. Nelson, No. 24532
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • June 22, 1970
    ...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, No. 06CA2142.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • December 13, 2007
    ...the language from Hilliard that the supreme court subsequently rejected in Judkins in favor of the language from Lesser. See Woodhams, 148 Colo. at 258, 365 P.2d at 698; Arnold, 134 Colo. at 578, 307 P.2d at 1108. Further, the division in Columbia discussed Hilliard, Dittbrenner, Zink, and ......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cabs, Inc., No. 86SA124
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 22, 1988
    ...Hansen, 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 concer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Broadnax, Nos. 91SA175
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 23, 1992
    ...Hansen, 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. 7......
  • Hithe v. Nelson, No. 24532
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • June 22, 1970
    ...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, No. 06CA2142.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • December 13, 2007
    ...the language from Hilliard that the supreme court subsequently rejected in Judkins in favor of the language from Lesser. See Woodhams, 148 Colo. at 258, 365 P.2d at 698; Arnold, 134 Colo. at 578, 307 P.2d at 1108. Further, the division in Columbia discussed Hilliard, Dittbrenner, Zink, and ......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cabs, Inc., No. 86SA124
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 22, 1988
    ...Hansen, 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 concer......
  • 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