Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

123 Ala. 103

Ex parte Roberson

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1898

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1898-11-15

Luther Roberson filed his petition in this court, averring that he Avas unlawfully confined in the county jail of Cullman county, and illegally restrained of his liberties, by virtue of a void and illegal judgment rendered against him in a case in Avhich he was prosecuted under an indictment for grand larceny. • The prayer of the petition was that a writ of habeas corpus he issued and that the petitioner be discharged.

Relies on Wilkinson v. State · Ex parte Simmons · Ex parte Brown

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1898-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 1982 · most notably Shirley v. State (1906), Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General (1907)

25 state decisions

601898190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SHARPE, J.

¶1The transcript made part of this petition shows that the petitioner was convicted in the circuit court of Cullman county upon an indictment for grand larceny, and that upon the verdict .judgment ivas rendered “that the defendant be and he [hereby is sentenced to be confined in the State penitentiary for a term of twenty-five months as a punishment for said offense.”

¶2Though it does omit to expressly adjudge the defendant’s guilt, the judgment sentencing the defendant to the penitentiary sufficiently implies the judgment of guilt and is a judgment of conviction which would ei^en support an appeal. The question has been expressly decided in Wilkinson v. State, 106 Ala. 28, and again in Driggers v. State, ante, p. 46.

¶3To warrant his discharge upon habeas corpas the proceedings under which the petitioner is held must be illegal.—Ex parte Simmons, 62 Ala. 416; Ex parte Brown, 63 Ala. 187. The defendant being legally held in custody under proceedings in a court having jurisdiction of his person and of the offense with which he was charged and has been convicted, the circuit judge properly refused to issue the writ, and here also it will be denied.

¶4Habeas corpus denied.

/123/ala/103 · .json · Public domain