Case ID: utah_28/html/0268-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BASKIN, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Application of J. H. CLARK, Appellant, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
    No. 1575.
    (78 Pac. 475.)
    Habeas Corpus: Conviction: Review.
    Where relator was convicted and sentenced for grand larceny by a court of competent jurisdiction, he was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of reviewing a judgment based on such conviction.
    
    
      (Decided November 16, 1904.)
    Appeal from tbe Third District Court, Salt Lake County.— Son. C. W. Morse, Judge.
    Application of J. H. Clark for a writ of habeas corpus to review a conviction of grand larceny. ' Prom an ■order denying the writ, the relator appealed,
    AFFIRMED.
    
      D. 8. Truman, Esq., for appellant.
    
      Son. M. A. Breeden, Attomey-G-eneral, and Son. W. B. White, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
    This case was considered and affirmed on appeal in "this court and is reported in 27 Utah 55, 74 Pac. Rep. 119. Whether or not the points now presented were raised before this court at the time the appeal was taken is immaterial. ‘ ‘ The whole case should have been presented at that time. The appellant had the opportunity of bringing the whole matter up and if he failed to do so it is his own misfortune. He cannot bring up part of it ánd after the Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment have the balance considered upon habeas corpus.” JEk Parte Hays, 15 Utah. 82.
    
      
       Ex parte Hays, 15 Utah 77, 47 Pac. 612.
    
   BASKIN, C. J.

The petitioner appeals to this •court from an order of the district court denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus. It appears from the allegations of the petitioner that he and Z. Graham and Albert Clark were jointly charged by information with the crime of larceny, and in a separate count they were also jointly charged with the crime of receiving stolen property, knowing the same to have been stolen; that the property alleged in the first count of the information to have been stolen was the same as that alleged in the second count as having been received, and was the personal property of one 0. F. Johnson. The said Graham and the petitioner were granted separate trials and. each found gnilty of grand laceny and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary, and at present are serving that sentence. Afterwards the said Albert Clark was, upon a seperate trial, found guilty of the crime charged in the second count of the information, and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail and to pay a. fine of $250. The petitioner appealed from the judgment against him, and it was affirmed by this court in State v. Clark, 27 Utah 55, 74 Pac. 119.

Habeas corpus cannot operate as an appeal or writ: of error. It is well settled that “the examination into' the imprisonment of a party under the sentence or order of a court is to extend only to the jurisdiction and authority to render the judgment, and where the custody is in pursuance of the order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such order is final until it is, reversed, and precludes inquiry on the writ.” 9 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 1061, and cases there cited. In Ex parte Hays, 15 Utah 77, 47 Pac. 612, this court, in an opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Bartch, held that “in a criminal case, where the district court has jurisdiction of the person and cause, its judgment is binding on all the world, until reversed in a regular way by appeal. A fortiori is this so after the judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Such a judgment is final, and pronounces the law of the case; and the Supreme Court will not, upon habeas corpus, look beyond it, and review the proceedings upon which the judgment was pronounced. ’ ’ In the case of State v. Clark, supra, the district court had jurisdiction of the petitioner and the' subject-matter of the information upon which he was. convicted and sentenced. The writ of habeas corpus applied for by the petitioner was therefore properly denied.

The order denying the writ is affirmed.

BARTCH and McCARTY, JJ., concur.