United States ex rel. Estep v. Skeen
United States ex rel. Estep v. Skeen
Opinion of the Court
Petitioner, Charles Edward Estep, is a state prisoner in the West Virginia
Following his sentence of life imprisonment in 1940 no appeal was taken, but on February 5, 1954, petitioner filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which petition was denied on February 15, 1954. On April 7, 1954, petitioner filed another petition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which was denied on April 19, 1954. The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari on May 24, 1954, Estep v. Skeen, Warden, 347 U.S. 979, 74 S.Ct. 793. Thereupon petitioner filed the present petition in this court.
The sole ground upon which petitioner claims unconstitutional confinement is that the court was “without authority of law” to sentence him to life imprisonment upon the assault indictment. A certified copy of the court records shows that the life sentence was not imposed upon the assault indictment, but upon the third felony conviction. Therefore petitioner is not detained under the indictment or the sentence of which he complains. In order to clarify the situation the court has looked to the court order upon which he is detained and has found it to be valid, and has found that the petitioner is legally confined for the following reasons:
At the time the sentence was imposed Chapter 61, Article 11, Section 19 of the official Code of West Virginia of 1931, as amended, provided:
“When any such convict shall have been twice before convicted in the United States of a crime punishable by confinement in a penitentiary, the person shall be sentenced to be confined in the penitentiary for life. But before such sentence may be lawfully imposed, it must be alleged -in the indictment on which the person is convicted, and admitted, or by the jury found, that such convict had theretofore been twice so convicted.”
At the time the petitioner entered his plea of guilty to the indictment charging him with forgery and reciting in detail the former convictions and sentences, it was proper to include in the indictment such former convictions. State v. Lawson, 125 W.Va. 1, 22 S.E.2d 643, 144 A.L.R. 235; United States ex rel. Bowe v. Skeen, D.C.N.D.W.Va., 107 F.Supp. 888; Anderson v. McClintic, 115 W.Va. 329, 175 S.E. 857. When the petitioner plead guilty to the indictment he also plead guilty to the former convictions and was therefore properly sentenced by the court as an habitual criminal. Anderson v. McClintic, supra. The United States Supreme Court has held that the procedure followed in West Virginia under the above statute was not unconstitutional. Graham v. State, 224 U.S. 616, 32 S.Ct. 583, 56 L.Ed. 917.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- UNITED STATES ex rel. Charles Edward ESTEP v. Orel J. SKEEN, Warden of West Virginia Penitentiary
- Status
- Published