Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

401 P.2d 534

Wynn v. Page

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1965-04-21

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 1968

4 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal, and where it appears that the trial court had jurisdiction over the person, subject matter and authority under law to pronounce sentence imposed, the writ of habeas corpus will be denied.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Charles v. State, Taylor v. Oklahoma County District Court

Relies on In Re the Habeas Corpus of Burke

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1965-04-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

¶1 This is an original proceeding instituted by Earl Wynn, an inmate of the State Penitentiary where he is currently confined under authority and by virtue of a judgment and sentence rendered against him in the District Court of Muskogee County after having been charged, tried and convicted for the offense of Robbery With Firearms.

¶2 Careful examination of the record attached to the State’s response and motion to dismiss, and the pleadings filed by the petitioner disclose that the alleged errors upon which petitioner seeks his release are matters which can only be reviewed by this Court on appeal.

¶3 It further appears that the trial court had jurisdiction of the person, subject matter and authority under law to pronounce the sentence imposed. Under these circumstances we follow the rule that habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal, and where it appears that the trial court had jurisdiction over the person, subject matter and authority under law to pronounce sentence imposed, the writ of habeas corpus will be denied. See In re Burke, Okl.Cr., 324 P.2d 285.

¶4 Writ denied.

NIX and BRETT, JJ., concur.
/401/p2d/534 · .json · Public domain