Case Name: James McMAHON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1971-11-01
Citations: 26 Utah 2d 391
Docket Number: No. 12376
Parties: James McMAHON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.
Judges: CALLISTER, C. J, and TUCKETT. ELLETT and CROCKETT, JT., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 26
Pages: 391–392

Head Matter:
490 P.2d 333
James McMAHON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent.
No. 12376.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Nov. 1, 1971.
Robert M. Anderson, of Van Cott, Bag-ley, Cornwall & McCarthy, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Lauren N. Beasley, Larry V. Lunt, Asst. Attys. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

Opinion:
HENRIOD, Justice.
Appeal from denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Affirmed.
Appellant had been convicted at a jury trial for receiving stolen property. He urges that 1) The introduction of perjured testimony knowingly or recklessly by the prosecution violated his constitutional rights, 2) That absent such testimony there was no corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice, and that 3) His right of appeal constitutionally was denied him. The stolen property involved was a snowmobile.
The trial court made findings to the effect that point 1) above was without merit and that the evidence did not support it, with which we agree, and it would serve no useful purpose to canvass the confused record relating thereto.
As to 2) : This point is not subject to review in a habeas corpus proceeding, which cannot be employed as a substitute for a regular appeal, where an opportunity to raise the issue could have been pursued. Bryant v. Turner, 19 Utah 2d 284, 431 P.2d 121 (1967).
As to 3) : The only argument that needs treatment here is the urgence that a statement by appellant at the time he was sentenced that he wanted to appeal, without thereafter filing a notice of appeal with the court clerk within the time prescribed, was tantamount to a regular appeal, and satisfied the statute and rules pertaining thereto. We reject such a contention as being a stranger to orderly procedure and any reasonable interpretation of the right of appeal or its appurtenant rules and regulations.
CALLISTER, C. J, and TUCKETT. ELLETT and CROCKETT, JT., concur.