EX PARTE HALL

Annotate this Case

EX PARTE HALL
1953 OK CR 124
261 P.2d 475
97 Okl.Cr. 204
Case Number: A-11937
Decided: 09/16/1953
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

Habeas Corpus Application not Considered on Grounds and Facts Existing When Former Application Was Denied. Where application for writ of habeas corpus has been denied, this court will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for writ based on the same grounds and same facts, or on other grounds or facts existing when the first application was made, whether then presented or not.

Original proceeding for writ of habeas corpus by Bill Hall. Writ denied.

Bill Hall, petitioner, pro se.

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

POWELL, P.J.

Bill Hall is confined to the State Penitentiary at McAlester by reason of a plea of guilty to robbery with firearms. He was sentenced to 25 years by the district court by Creek county. The death penalty might have been assessed. Tit. 21 O.S. 1951 § 801 [21-801]. This court has heretofore given consideration to the circumstances surrounding the prisoner's plea of guilty and subsequent imprisonment. See Ex parte Hall, 91 Okla. Cr. 11, 215 P.2d 587.

The Attorney General has filed a demurrer to the present petition for writ of habeas corpus. It was set on the docket for hearing for June 10, 1953, and has been taken under advisement. It must be sustained. No tenable proposition is presented that could not have been presented in the former application. The court was cognizant of all the arguments now attempted to be presented. The petition is not verified as required by Tit. 12 O.S. 1951 § 1332 [12-1332], and no evidence has been offered to contradict the court records. See In re Fraley, 4 Okla. Cr. 91, 111 P. 662; In re Seale, 76 Okla. Cr. 164, 135 P.2d 346; Denton v. Hunt, 79 Okla. Cr. 166, 152 P.2d 698.

The petition is denied

JONES and BRETT, JJ., 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.