JACK DAVID LOVE, APPELLANT,
v.
RAY H. PAGE, WARDEN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the delay between arrest and trial, without demonstrated prejudice, is insufficient to invalidate a conviction for federal habeas corpus purposes. New claims not presented to the trial court cannot be considered on appeal.
Appellant was arrested in 1962, charged with grand larceny, and after several preliminary hearings and delays, was tried and convicted in March 1963. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudice From Delay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, who is presently confined in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, has appealed from a denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Love was arrested on June 14, 1962, and charged on one count with grand larceny. On June 22 he was taken before a magistrate where he waived a preliminary hearing and was bound over to the district court for trial. Subsequently and on August 3, new charges were filed against him and he was arraijgned upon these charges before a magistrate on August 6, at which time he waived a preliminary hearing and was bound over to the district court for trial. Arraignment in the district court was not had until March 1, 1963, and a jury trial upon the charges followed on March 11 and 12. Sentence, after a verdict of guilty, was pronounced on March 23.
In the trial court appellant’s only ground for invalidating the judgment of conviction and sentence was the delay between his arrest and trial. We agree with the trial court that, under the facts disclosed by the record, this is insufficient to constitute a basis for Federal Court jurisdiction. It is a matter preceding the trial1 and we can find no prejudice to Love at the trial by reason of the delay. Appellant, for the first time, raises other questions concerning the validity of his present confinement. These questions were not presented to the district judge, therefore, we must refrain from passing upon them. In this regard, we are advised by counsel for respondent that the Oklahoma Legislature has recently enacted into law a statute similar to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which gives to state prisoners a post conviction remedy.2 This new statute is available to appellant for the purpose of seeking relief upon the new grounds urged here for the first time.
Affirmed.
. Klink v. Looney, 10 Cir., 262 F. 2d 119; United States ex rel. Sproch v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 246 F. 2d 264.
. 22 O.S.Supp.1965, § 1073.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoggatt v. Page, 432 F.2d 41 (10th Cir. 1970)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Ragen, 246 F.2d 264 (7th Cir. 1957)
- Lowry Newton Klink v. Looney, 262 F.2d 119 (10th Cir. 1958)