Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

357 P.2d 251

Hanger v. Raines

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided November 23, 1960

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1960-11-23

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1969

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A habeas corpus proceeding is not available to review the question of whether one detained under a sentence entered upon a plea of guilty in a prosecution for the crime of indecent acts towards a minor child under the age of fourteen years, after former conviction of a felony, was insane at the time of the commission of the offense. “The question of insanity at the time of the commission of an offense, as a defense to a criminal prosecution therefor, must be raised at the trial and determined by the jury upon the evidence relative thereto.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Reid v. Raines, In re Habeas Corpus of Hanger

Relies on 71 Okla. Crim. 268 - Ex Parte Gilbert · 54 Okla. Crim. 357 - Ex Parte Yandell · 89 Okla. Crim. 89 - Ex Parte Potts

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1960-11-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

¶1 The record discloses that the petitioner, Floyd Hanger, Jr., was received at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester on May 6, 1959, and is now restrained and imprisoned in said institution by reason of a judgment and sentence made and entered on May 6, 1959 in the district court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, wherein said petitioner was charged by information with the crime of indecent acts toward a minor child under the age of fourteen years, after former conviction of a felony. Upon his plea of guilty to said charge, he received a sentence of ten years in the State Penitentiary.

¶2 Petitioner seeks by way of writ of habeas corpus his release from the penitentiary upon the ground, in substance, that he was insane at the time of the commission of said alleged crime, “in that he had been declared incompetent by a county court and committed to a state hospital, and upon his release had never been restored to legal competency.”

¶3 The question presented has been before this Court many times. In Ex parte Potts, 89 Okl.Cr. 89, 205 P.2d 522, 523, this Court said:

“After a judgment of conviction has become final, the question of a defendant’s insanity at the time of the commission of the offense, or at the time of the trial, cannot be raised on habeas corpus.”

¶4 See also: Ex parte Yandell, 54 Okl.Cr. 357, 22 P.2d 114; Ex parte Gilbert, 71 Okl.Cr. 268, 111 P.2d 205; 29 A.L.R.2d 703, note.

¶5 The petition is, accordingly, denied.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
/357/p2d/251 · .json · Public domain