Court Opinion

ID: 9868435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:35:11.09806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:50.400596
License: Public Domain

ON Petition to Kehear.
This is a proceeding by which the relator, in a, ha-beas corpus proceeding, resisted being extradited to Detroit, Michigan, to answer a criminal charge, .upon the ground that he was not in the demanding state when the crime is alleged to have been committed. The trial court dismissed his petition, and, upon appeal, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court, because the relator had not sustained the averments in his petition by satisfactory proof.
A petition has been presented to this court by relator asking permission to institute a second habeas corpus proceeding, upon the ground that he has discovered additional evidence to support his contention that he was not in the State of Michigan when the alleged crime was committed. The petition will be denied.
In Anderson County v. Hays, 99 Tenn., 567, this court said:
“Finally, we are asked to remand the cause in order that other facts and matters may be shown. This Court has the power, under the statute (Shannon, section 4905), to remand a case to the Court below when, in its opinion, complete justice cannot be had by reason of *292some defect in tibie record, want of proper parties, or oversight without culpable negligence. But when a party has had full opportunity to present the facts necessary for his defense, and has failed to do so, and has chosen to rely upon presumptions and inferences, it does not present a case under the statute. If it did, there would be occasion for a remand in almost every case, as it is easy to see, upon the final trial, where the record might have been strengthened on the preliminary hearing.”
Such remandment must be based upon the record alone, and not upon matter outside of the record, such as affidavits, etc., for the remandment upon matter outside of the record would require the exercise of original and not appellate jurisdiction. Bank v. Jefferson, 92 Tenn., 542; Hill v. Hillsman, 75 Tenn., 197; Puckett v. Richardson, 74 Tenn., 64; McEwen v. Gillespie, 71 Tenn., 206; McKinley v. Sherry, 70 Tenn., 203; Fogg v. Union Bank, 63 Tenn., 541.
In State ex rel. v. Hebert, 127 Tenn., beginning on page 243, the court states the circumstances under which a second proceeding can be had in a habeas corpus case, and then says:
"Now in the case before the court it is perceived the petition in the habeas corpus proceeding before the judge of the criminal court of Davidson county does not charge any want of jurisdiction on the part of this court, or that the period of confinement' has ended, or any other really new matter. At most, the petitioner therein seeks á new trial of the case by the use of the writ of habeas corpus on the ground of alleged newly-discovered facts. We have seen that the alleged new grounds charged are but variations of those already passed on by this court at Knoxville, and in substance the same; the new cir-*293oumstances being introduced for the purpose of strengthening petitioner’s case on the old points.”
The court further held that where new facts arise or are discovered after its decision which, if known, would have deterred it from dismissing the petition, upon the filing of a new verified petition, setting forth the new facts, the court may authorize a second habeas corpus proceeding.
The new petition herein contains no new facts, but simply asks for another trial to strengthen the facts or points alleged in the original petition, which it was expressly held in the Hebert case could not be done. Counsel fails to make the proper distinction between evidence and facts. The petition alleges the discovery of new evidence, but sets forth no new facts.
The petition will be dismissed.