EX PARTE HINLEY

EX PARTE HINLEY
1950 OK CR 93
220 P.2d 844
92 Okl.Cr. 85
Case Number: A-11404
Decided: 07/19/1950
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. Habeas Corpus Court Will not Entertain Application for Writ Based on Grounds or Facts Existing When Former Application Was Made. The Criminal Court of Appeals, having denied an application for habeas corpus, will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for such writ on the same grounds or facts existing when first application was made, whether then presented or not.

2. Same Writ Denied Where Questions Presented Same as Raised in Previous Application. Where questions presented in petition for habeas corpus have been raised in previous application for habeas corpus, writ would be denied.

Proceeding in the matter of habeas corpus of Jake Hinley to secure his release from confinement in the State Penitentiary. Writ denied.

Jake Hinley, pro se.

Page 86

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

BRETT, J.

The petitioner, Jake Hinley, has filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking his release from the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, where he is serving a term of life imprisonment by reason of a judgment and sentence in the district court of Jefferson county, Oklahoma.

The judgment and sentence was entered on November 22, 1938, and no appeal was taken therefrom. On three prior occasions, the petitioner herein has filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Criminal Court of Appeals, one of which was denied on January 17, 1945, Ex parte Hinley, 79 Okla. Cr. 382, 155 P.2d 265, wherein it was held that a writ may not be substituted for an appeal; the second was denied on July 30, 1947, Ex parte Hinley, 84 Okla. Cr. 437, 183 P.2d 602, wherein it was held that this court will not entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus unless it bears on the question of the court's lack of jurisdiction, and further that it will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for such writ on the same grounds or facts existing when the first application was made; the third application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied on November 10, 1948, Ex parte Hinley, 88 Okla. Cr. 81, 199 P.2d 613, wherein the substance of the holding was of the same import as the two prior applications.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed herein on April 14, 1950 and the questions raised in the three previous occasions being identical in substance the same as the one herewith presented the petitioner wholly fails to state grounds sufficient to entitle the petitioner to relief by habeas corpus. This court has repeatedly

Page 87

held that it will not ordinarily entertain a subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus on the same grounds or facts existing when the first application was made whether then presented or not. Ex parte Gray, 74 Okla. Cr. 200, 124 P.2d 430; Ex parte Berrie, 75 Okla. 115, 129 P.2d 88; Denton v. Hunt, Warden, 79 Okla. Cr. 166, 152 P.2d 698; Ex parte Edwards, 79 Okla. Cr. 259, 154 P.2d 105. Such being the record here confronting us it is unnecessary to again discuss the issues raised in this and the prior petitions for writs of habeas corpus presented by this petitioner. As has heretofore been said, the situation being such as it is "the only relief for this petitioner would be through an application for pardon or parole, before the State Pardon and Parole Board". Ex parte Hinley, 84 Okla. Cr. 437, 183 P.2d 603; Ex parte Hinley, 88 Okla. Cr. 81, 199 P.2d 613. For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in accordingly denied.

JONES, P.J., and POWELL, J., concur.