Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

347 P.2d 1045

Parker v. Raines

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided December 16, 1959

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1959-12-16

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1960

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The Court of Criminal Appeals will not issue writ of habeas corpus where accused has appealed his judgment of conviction, the judgment is affirmed and question raised in habeas corpus proceedings were in existence and known to petititioner at time of appeal and were matters which proper ly should have been presented by appeal.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Application of Brock

Relies on In Re the Habeas Corpus of Vassar · Application of Yarbrough

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1959-12-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus filed by Jim Parker to obtain his release from the state penitentiary.

¶2The record before the court reflects that petitioner was convicted of the crime of “Attempting to Obtain Property By Means of a Confidence Game.” Judgment and sentence was rendered against the defendant on the Sth day of November, 19S7. Defendant, within the time prescribed by law appealed his case to this court and the same was modified and affirmed on the 15th day of October, 1958. Defendant thereafter on the 6th day of May, 1959, filed in this Court his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The same grounds were alleged for his release as were set forth in his direct appeal.

¶3This court has been consistent in adhering to the rule laid down in the case of In re Vassar, Okl.Cr., 338 P.2d 359 where the court said:

“The Court of Criminal Appeals will not issue writ of habeas corpus where accused has appealed his judgment of conviction, the judgment is affirmed and question raised in habeas corpus proceedings were in existence and known to petitioner at time of appeal and were matters which properly should have been presented by appeal.”

¶4Also, see In re Yarbrough, Okl.Cr., 295 P.2d 826.

¶5The writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied.

/347/p2d/1045 · .json · Public domain