TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Thomas

Ex Parte Henry Thomas.

Ex Parte Thomas, 1934 OK CR 137, 37 P.2d 829
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 16, 1934
Docket
No. A-8830.
Judges
Edwards, Davenport, Chappell
Citations
37 P.2d 8291934 OK CR 13756 Okla. Crim. 2581934 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 76

Opinion of the Court — Edwards

EDWARDS, P. J.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus.

Petitioner alleges he is unlawfully restrained by the chief of police of Oklahoma City. That he was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct, and at the police sta *259 tion a charge of public drunkenness was filed against him. That he was fined $15 and costs; that he appealed to the county court, was there tried, convicted, and fined $10 and costs. He alleges there was no competent evidence against him in either the police court or the county court. He contends the county court did not have jurisdiction for the reason that in appealing, he did not serve the notice required by law and that therefore the appeal was not properly lodged in the county court.

The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as an appeal, a writ of error, or certiorari. Only a lack of jurisdiction or errors or irregularities which divest the court of jurisdiction or render the judgment void can be raised by habeas corpus. If the evidence was insufficient or the conviction was based on incompetent evidence, his remedy is by appeal. His contention that the county court did not have jurisdiction of his appeal for the reason that he did not serve notice of appeal is wholly without merit. It is trifling with the court to contend that one convicted of a crime in an inferior court may appeal to the proper appellate court, invoke and submit to its jurisdiction, and when there convicted, then deny the jurisdiction of the court, because in appealing he had not strictly followed the statute in some matter of procedure.

The writ is denied.

DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1941: 11946: 11947: 21948: 41949: 11952: 11961: 11962: 11964: 11965: 119412026peak 1948 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ex Parte Lewis1947 OK CR 151, 188 P.2d 367
  2. Ex Parte Vanderburg1941 OK CR 127, 117 P.2d 550
  3. Ex Parte Walker1947 OK CR 54, 180 P.2d 670
  4. Ex Parte Critser1948 OK CR 90, 198 P.2d 228
  5. In re Pate's Petition1962 OK CR 43, 371 P.2d 500
  6. Ex Parte Fisher1948 OK CR 109, 199 P.2d 238

Most recent

  1. Wynn v. Page1965 OK CR 153, 408 P.2d 558
  2. Love v. State1964 OK CR 13, 389 P.2d 367
  3. In re Pate's Petition1962 OK CR 43, 371 P.2d 500
  4. Application of Ervin1961 OK CR 13, 359 P.2d 244
  5. Ex parte Jackson1952 OK CR 96, 247 P.2d 533
  6. Ex Parte O'Hara1949 OK CR 58, 206 P.2d 592

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list