Case Name: Douglas JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent; Terry ADAMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent; Harold F. HEEMER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1972-06-22
Citations: 28 Utah 2d 84
Docket Number: Nos. 12776, 12829, 12859
Parties: Douglas JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent. Terry ADAMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent. Harold F. HEEMER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.
Judges: CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCKETT, HENRIOD, and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 28
Pages: 84–85

Head Matter:
498 P.2d 654
Douglas JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent. Terry ADAMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent. Harold F. HEEMER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.
Nos. 12776, 12829, 12859.
Supreme Court of Utah.
June 22, 1972.
David P. Rhode, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., David S. Young, Larry V. Lunt, David R. Irvine, Asst. Attys. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
ELLETT, Justice.
These three cases have been consolidated for argument on appeal. Each appellant appeals from a refusal of the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on petitions for writs of habeas corpus. In each case the appellant undertook to raise the identical issues in the habeas corpus proceeding that he had theretofore raised in his appeal to this court.
Counsel for the appellants admits that the case of Scandrett v. Turner squarely holds that a defendant cannot present the same issues in a habeas corpus proceeding that he had theretofore unsuccessfully raised on appeal.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in each case.
CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCKETT, HENRIOD, and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.
. 26 Utah 2d 371, 489 P.2d 1186 (1971).