
    FORBES v. BURFORD, Warden.
    No. A-11411.
    Nov. 8, 1950.
    (224 P. 2d 269.)
    Charles Forbes, per se.
    Mae Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Owen J. Watts, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
   JONES, P. J.

This is an original action in habeas • corpus instituted by the petitioner, diaries Forbes, to secure his release from confinement in the State Penitentiary.

The petition is unverified but signed by the petitioner. It was evidently drawn by some inmate of the penitentiary who apparently had read decisions of this court and was attempting to pattern his petition after some of those described in the decisions of the court. From the best we are able to deduct from the ambiguous nature of the petition, it is claimed that petitioner entered a plea of guilty in the district court of Delaware county and was sentenced to serve three years in the State Penitentiary on a charge of stealing cattle; that petitioner was not represented by counsel and was so illiterate that be did not know wbat be was doing at tbe time tbe plea of guilty was entered.

At tbe direction of tbis court tbe Attorney General bas made an investigation of petitioner’s case and bas filed a response to tbe petition. Attached to the response is a copy of the judgment and sentence pronounced against tbe accused. Tbis judgment and sentence shows that on tbe 19th day of December, 1949, the petitioner was sentenced to serve a term of three years imprisonment in tbe State Penitentiary for the crime of larceny of domestic animals upon a plea of guilty. This sentence was tbe minimum that could have been given under tbe law.

We have also been furnished with affidavits of tbe district judge and the county attorney of Delaware county, together with certified copy of tbe appearance docket, and tbe minutes of tbe court proceedings at tbe time of tbe entry of the plea of guilty by petitioner. These instruments divulge that tbe petitioner was arrested on December 16, 1949, following the confession of bis brother; that those two together with one Frank Salas had stolen a cow and calf from H. G. Carson and took them to tbe Joplin stockyards, sold them and divided tbe money three ways; that after tbe arrest of tbe accused be made a full confession and at the time be entered bis plea of guilty be was present in the court with bis wife and other relatives; that defendant did not appear to be feeble-minded or unable to comprehend tbe nature of tbe charge filed against him, but readily stated to tbe court that be was ready to plead guilty and waive bis right to counsel. Tbe trial court stated in bis affidavit:

“There is no question at all in tbis Court’s mind that tbis man fully understood everything that be was doing, was fully advised of all of bis rights at tbe time of bis plea and sentence.”

It should be borne in mind that this is a habeas corpus action and not an appeal from a judgment of conviction. In habeas corpus the scope of review is limited to an examination of the jurisdiction of the court whose judgment of conviction is challenged. In re Davis, 78 Okla. Cr. 444, 150 P. 2d 367.

We are being deluged with a large number of petitions for habeas corpus from the State Penitentiary. Evidently some inmate of the penitentiary is taking advantage of the other inmates and by making exaggerated representations as to his knowledge of the law is procuring a fee from the inmates and filing these petitions as fast as he can type them. In the instant case the petition is improperly prepared and no certified copy of any of the court proceedings in the trial court are attached to the petition. If an inmate of the prison wishes to challenge a judgment and sentence pronounced against him, he should attach to his petition a certified copy of the information and a certified copy of the judgment and sentence pronounced against him.

If the alleged basis for attempted release on habeas corpus pertains to the alleged denial of some of the constitutional rights of the accused, a certified copy of the minutes of the court proceedings should also be attached.

In the instant case the judgment and sentence attached to the response is regular on its face, and in the face of the vagueness of the unverified petition we feel that this judgment and sentence is a sufficient answer to the petition for habeas corpus and is sufficient to show the authority by which the warden is detaining the prisoner.

The writ of habeas corpus is denied.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.  