Smith
Nevada Supreme Court
Matter of Habeas Corpus on petition of Terence Gr. Smith to the Supreme Court of Nevada. The judgment was void for the reason that an interval of six hours did not transpire, as the statute requires, between the plea of guilty and the sentence passed by the Court. The Warden of the Penitentiary, under the statute, is only authorized to detain a prisoner in custody when he has a copy of the judgment ordering the imprisonment.
Read the full summary
Matter of Habeas Corpus on petition of Terence Gr. Smith to the Supreme Court of Nevada. The judgment was void for the reason that an interval of six hours did not transpire, as the statute requires, between the plea of guilty and the sentence passed by the Court. The Warden of the Penitentiary, under the statute, is only authorized to detain a prisoner in custody when he has a copy of the judgment ordering the imprisonment. The return of the Warden not showing any copy of the judgment against Smith, shows no authority to hold him. The Court had no jurisdiction to enter judgment until the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beatty, J., Lewis, C. J., concurring.
In this case, the prisoner asks to be discharged from the State Prison, where he has been confined for some months past, and bases his petition upon two grounds :
First. That he is not held by any legal commitment or legal authority.
Second. There has been no legal judgment of imprisonment against him.
After sentence was pronounced against the prisoner, a regular order of commitment was made out, and he was carried to the State Prison, and delivered into the custody of the Warden, who also received at 'the same time with the prisoner, the order of…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Ex parte DegenerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1891
- Ex parte CoxIdaho Supreme Court · 1893
- Ex parte TaniNevada Supreme Court · 1907
- Ex Parte OhlNevada Supreme Court · 1939
- Ex Parte SheplyNevada Supreme Court · 1949
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.