delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ of error is directed to the trial court’s denial of King’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Originally, King pled guilty to a charge of illegal possession of narcotics. In his present petition he alleges that the evidence of the crime was obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure and that his counsel at trial knew this but nevertheless “induced” him to enter a plea of guilty.

Where a petition for habeas corpus itself shows that the party can neither be discharged nor admitted to bail nor in any other manner be relieved, the trial court should summarily deny the petition. C.R.S. 1963, 65-1-1; Bizup v. Tinsley, 155 Colo. 131, 393 P.2d 556. King’s petition raises no question of the trial court’s jurisdiction of the person or of the offense or of the sentence not being within the limits prescribed by law. Habeas corpus, therefore, is not the proper remedy for redress of his alleged grievance. Specht v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 235, 385 P.2d 423; Titmus v. Tinsley, 153 Colo. 96, 384 P.2d 728.

The judgment is affirmed.