Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

188 F.2d 159

Docket No. 4215.

Carr v. Burford

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 3, 1951.

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1951-04-03

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1956

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Darr v. Burford · Delano v. Armstrong Rubber Co. · 91 Okla. Crim. 94 - Carr v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1951-04-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Glenn Carr, pro se, filed briefs.

¶2Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., of Oklahoma, and Owen J. Watts, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Oklahoma, filed a brief for appellee.

¶3Before BRATTON, HUXMAN, and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is an appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma dismissing appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

¶6On April 3, 1948, petitioner was convicted in the district court of Canadian County, Oklahoma, for violation of the Habitual Criminal Statute, 21 Okl.St.Ann. § 51, and was sentenced to serve a term of 25 years in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. The judgment and sentence were affirmed by the Criminal Court of Appeals. Carr v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 216 P.2d 333. An unsuccessful attempt was made to have this decision reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States. Carr v. Oklahoma, 340 U.S. 840, 71 S.Ct. 28. Habeas corpus proceedings were not instituted in the state court prior to the commencement of this action.

¶7On the authority of Ex parte Williams, 317 U.S. 604, 63 S.Ct. 431, 87 L.Ed. 491, and Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 70 S.Ct. 587, 94 L.Ed. 761, the judgment is affirmed.

/188/f2d/159 · .json · Public domain