EX PARTE BURTON

Annotate this Case

EX PARTE BURTON
1952 OK CR 146
250 P.2d 227
96 Okl.Cr. 142
Case Number: A-11838
Decided: 11/12/1952
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Habeas Corpus Burden on Petitioner to Show Court Without Jurisdiction to Sentence Accused. The burden of proof is upon the petitioner who assails a

Page 143

judgment and sentence to show that the court which pronounced the same was without jurisdiction to sentence the accused, or that in the proceedings at the time sentence was pronounced upon a plea of guilty the accused was denied due process of law.

2. Same Writ Denied Where Petitioner Failed to Show Illegality of Judgment and Sentence. Petitioners failed to sustain burden of showing illegality of judgment and sentence, and petition for habeas corpus was denied.

Writ of habeas corpus proceeding filed by Jessie Burton and Robert C. Burton. Petition denied.

Robert C. Burton, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

JONES, J.

The petitioners, Jessie Burton and Robert C. Burton, mailed to the Presiding Judge of the Criminal Court of Appeals an unverified petition for habeas corpus in which they allege that they were illegally restrained of their liberty by the warden of the State Penitentiary.

Although the petition was unverified this court in deference to the apparent illiteracy of the petitioners set the petition for hearing to give them an opportunity to show that the sentence under which they were allegedly held was contrary to law and allegedly made in violation of their constitutional rights.

No appearance was made for or on behalf of the petitioners and nothing further has been heard from them since the filing of the unverified petition. Although reference is made in the petition to the judgment and sentence, a copy of said judgment and sentence was not attached to the petition.

There being nothing before this court which would authorize or justify the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the petition is accordingly denied.

BRETT, P.J., and POWELL, J., concur.

 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.