Ex parte Pearson

Ex parte Pearson
1948 OK CR 88
198 P.2d 226
87 Okl.Cr. 364
Decided: 09/23/1948
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Habeas Corpus-Purpose of Writ. The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is, not to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused of the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced, but only to determine whether he is restrained of his liberty by due process of law and whether the court which rendered judgment imposing the sentence was with out jurisdiction.

2. Same-Burden on Petitioner to Show Court Rendering Judgment Was Without Jurisdiction. The burden is on petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding to show that court which rendered judgment was without jurisdiction.

3. Same Writ not Substituted for Appeal. Writ of habeas corpus may not be substituted for an appeal.

4. Same Writ Denied Where Allegations of Petition and Evidence Insufficient to Show Lack of Jurisdiction. Where al legations of petition and supporting evidence are insufficient to show lack of jurisdiction in trial court, writ of habeas corpus will be denied.

Original proceeding in habeas corpus by Joe Pearson, Jr., seeking his release from the State Penitentiary. Writ denied.

Joe Pearson, Jr., of McAlester, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES, J. This is an original action instituted by the petitioner, Joe Pearson, Jr., to secure his release from confinement in the State Penitentiary.

It is contended by petitioner that if defend * ant is guilty of any crime, he is not guilty of rape in the first degree which is the crime for which he was tried and sentenced, and further alleges that the testimony of the prosecutrix was preposterous, unreasonable, and that there was no corroboration of her testimony.

Page 365

Attached to the petition is an affidavit of Joe Pearson, Jr., pretending to set out the "actual" facts pertaining to the prosecution. In this affidavit, he admitted that he was having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix when three policemen arrested him in an Oklahoma City park, but claimed the act was voluntary on the part of the prosecutrix and was committed at her suggestion.

In the recent case of Ex parte Peaker, 82 Okla. Cr. 360, 170 P.2d 264, 265, it is stated:

"It has been many times stated that the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is not to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused of the crime for which he was convicted and sentenced, but only to determine whether he is restrained of his liberty by due process of law, and whether the court which rendered judgment imposing the sentence was without jurisdiction. In re Maynard, 79 Okla. Cr. 215, 153 P.2d 505; In re Threatt, 79 Okla. Cr. 67, 151 P.2d 816.

"The scope of review in a habeas corpus proceeding is limited to an examination of the jurisdiction of the court whose judgment of conviction is challenged. In re Flowers, 71 Okla. Cr. 330, 111 P.2d 509.

"This court has held that the remedy of habeas corpus is available where it is shown that in the proceedings resulting in the conviction of the accused his constitutional rights were denied. Ex parte Meadows, 71 Okla. Cr. 353, 112 P.2d 419. Ex parte Stinnett, 71 Okla. Cr. 1S4, 110 P.2d 310."