Ex parte Critser

Ex parte Critser
1948 OK CR 90
198 P.2d 228
87 Okl.Cr. 380
Decided: 09/29/1948
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Arraignment and Pleas-Waiver by Announcing Ready for Trial. Where a defendant in a criminal case announces ready for trial, he thereby waives arraignment and plea or any irregularity therein.

2. Habeas Corpus-Inquiry Limited to Cases Where Judgment and Sentence of Court are Clearly Void. The writ of habeas corpus is limited to cases where the judgment and sentence of the court attacked are clearly void.

3. Same Mere Irregularities or Errors of Law not Considered. The Criminal Court of Appeals on habeas corpus will not look beyond the judgment and sentence of any court of competent jurisdiction as to mere irregularities of procedure or errors of law on questions over which the court has jurisdiction.

4. Same-Writ not Substituted for Appeal. Habeas corpus may not be substituted for appeal.

Original proceeding by petitioner, Bill Critser, for a writ of habeas corpus seeking his release from the penitentiary. Writ denied.

Bill Critser, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BRETT, J. This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus brought by the petitioner Bill Critser, seeking his release from the penitentiary at McAlester, Okla.

Petitioner alleges that he was convicted in the district court of Tulsa county, Okla., on a charge of robbery by force of one Walter Mason of $30 in money, on October 4, 1947. He contends that though counsel was appointed for him by the court before arraignment, at the time of arraignment counsel was not present, but he admits that notwithstanding counsel was not present he

Page 381

entered a plea of not guilty. Thus, he was not injured by the absence of his counsel. Thereafter he apparently announced ready, when the case came on for trial before a jury, apparently with the aid of counsel, at which time he was convicted and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. He contends that the fact he entered his plea without the aid of counsel in the preliminary stages of the proceeding is ground for relief by habeas corpus. This contention, however, is without merit under the circumstances herein involved, for it was said in Huffman v. State, 46 Okla. Cr. 377, 287 P. 1090, 1091:

"The record discloses that defendant announced ready for trial, and even if the manner of taking the plea was irregular, it was waived by such announcement. Ray v. State, [40 Okla. Cr. 413], 269 P. 509."

In his petition he further says he was inexperienced in matters of the law. We must observe that it was not necessary that he be experienced in such matters since he had the aid and advice of counsel provided by the court.

Next he contends that the evidence upon which he was convicted was purely circumstantial and unsubstantiated. This is a matter that can be reached only on appeal, and not by habeas corpus, for it has been repeatedly held that habeas corpus is not a substitute for appeal. Ex parte Broyles, 84 Okla. Cr. 47, 178 P.2d 652; Ex parte Darr, 84 Okla. Cr. 3.152, 182 P.2d 523; Ex parte Mayfield, 84 Okla. Cr. 15S, 179 P.2d 934; Ex parte Walker, 84 Okla. Cr. 190, 180 P.2d 670; Ex parte Robinson, 56 Okla. Cr. 404, 41 P.2d 127; Ex parte Thomas, 56 Okla. Cr. 258, 37 P.2d 829; Ex parte Barnette, 29 Okla. Cr. 80, 232 P. 456; Ex parte Talley, 4 Okla. Cr. 398, 112 P. 36, 31 L. R. A., N. S., 805; In re Sullivan, 82 Okla. Cr. 364, 170 P.2d 260; Ex parte Miller, 82 Okla. Cr. 315,

Page 382

 169 P.2d 574; and numerous other decisions to that effect.

Moreover, we have said that habeas corpus cannot be used to correct irregularities of procedure. Ex parte Cannes, 77 Okla. Cr. 71, 138 P.2d 561, certiorari denied Cannes v. State, 320 U.S. 764, 64 S. Ct. 44, 88 L. Ed. 456. Also, Ex parte Darr, supra; Ex parte Stover, 14 Okla. Cr. 120, 167 P. 1000; Ex parte Vanderburg, 73 Okla. Cr. 21, 117 P.2d 550; Ex parte Tollison, 73 Okla. Cr. 38, 117 P.2d 549, wherein this court said:

"The Criminal Court of Appeals on habeas corpus will not look beyond the judgment and sentence of any court of competent jurisdiction as to mere irregularities of procedure or errors of law on questions over which the court has jurisdiction."