Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of ROBERT MONTAGUE, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM R. CONTE, Respondent.

[1] Habeas Corpus — Nature — Purpose. The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of the petitioner's restraint and to determine whether his constitutional right to due process has been violated. The propriety of an instruction, a matter which should be challenged by appeal, is not within the scope of inquiry under the habeas corpus remedy. [See 39 Am.Jur.2d, Habeas Corpus §§ 11, 21.]

PER CURIAM.

Robert Montague, convicted on a charge of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, seeks to challenge the legality of an instruction by writ of habeas corpus.

[1] The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of petitioner's restraint and to determine whether his constitutional right to due process in law have been violated. Pettit v. Rhay, 62 Wn.2d 515, 518, 383 P.2d 889 (1963). Since the propriety of an instruction should be challenged by appeal, petitioner's application is not within the scope of the habeas corpus remedy. Massey v. Rhay, 76 Wn.2d 78, 455 P.2d 367 (1969).

The judgment and sentence under which petitioner is restrained is valid on its face. Consequently, the application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MONTAGUE v. CONTE
(Nov 25, 1970)