This is an original proceeding in babeas corpus instituted by the petitioner, Jack Baldridge, to secure bis release from confinement in tbe State Penitentiary.

Tbe verified petition specifically attacked two judgments pronounced against tbe petitioner in tbe district court of Ottawa county in cases numbered 2624 and 2625 in said court, wherein tbe petitioner entered a plea of guilty to tbe crime of murder entered against him in each of said cases and was sentenced to serve a term of life imprisonment on each of said charges.

Tbe petition is lengthy and it is contended that tbe judgments are void for tbe reason that in tbe proceedings before the trial court, tbe convictions were sustained without due process of law.

A rule to show cause was issued and response filed by tbe warden of tbe State Penitentiary, wherein it is shown that, in "addition to tbe two commitments in the cases attacked in tbe petition, the warden is also holding tbe petitioner by reason of tbe revocation of a parole and recommitment of tbe petitioner to tbe State Penitentiary to serve an unsatisfied portion of a 20-year sentence for manslaughter.

*302 A bearing was bad before this court. It appeared from tbe facts that in the year 1915, petitioner was convicted in tbe district court of Ottawa county of the crime of manslaughter in tbe first degree and was sentenced to serve 20 years imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. He escaped from tbe penitentiary in 1918. While be was an escapee, be married under an assumed name and lived in another state until 1939. In tbe year 1939, tbe petitioner became seriously ill and thought be was going to die. At that time, petitioner made a “death-bed confession,” disclosing bis identity and the fact of bis escape from tbe Oklahoma State Penitentiary. After petitioner recovered from his illness, he was taken back to tbe penitentiary to finish serving his sentence. A few months later, he obtained a parole. After he killed his wife and one J. W. Williams, in the town of Commerce, in Ottawa county, on November 29r 1944, the parole was revoked.

The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to secure release from confinement. Since petitioner is noAV serving the unexpired term of the manslaughter conviction, which is not being attacked, this court could not grant his release from confinement even though the judgments attacked are void.

As was said in the case of Ex parte Tollison, 73 Okla. Cr. 38, 117 P. 2d 549:

“Where petitioner stands committed on unsatisfied judgments, other than the one upon which he is seeking Ids release on habeas corpus, the writ of habeas corpus will be denied.”

In the body of the opinion, it is stated:

“Since the allegation of the petitioner, if true, would only serve to set aside the judgment pronounced in the case which is being attacked and would not serve to grant him a discharge from his imprisonment for the *303 reason that be stands imprisoned to answer three other judgments pronounced against him, which sentences thus pronounced are unsatisfied, the petition will have to be denied. Ex parte Allen, 56 Okla. Cr. 154, 35 P. 2d 284; Ex parte Russell, 52 Okla. Cr. 136, 3 P. 2d 248; Ex parte Adams, 39 Okla. Cr. 334, 265 P. 147.”

For the reasons hereinabove stated, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.