This is аn appeal from a judgment denying appellant’s release in a habeas corpus рroceeding.
On the 27th day of March, 1961, the appellant, Jimmy Argo, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, and on the same day the writ was issued by the Honorable Eugene W. Carter, directed to A. Frank Lee, as Commissioner of the Board of Corrections of the State of Alabama, and Martin J. Wiman, as Warden of Kilby Prison, commanding them to have the body of pеtitioner together with the cause of his 'detention, before him on the 29th day of March, 1961.
The return to thе writ sets o.ut that the prisoner was confined to the state penitentiary by virtue of a judgment and sentence of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, of date March 18, 1960. A copy of the indictmеnt and of the judgment and sentence of the circuit court appear as exhibits to the return tо the writ.
The indictment, in two counts, charges petitioner with the offenses of grand larceny and buying, receiving or concealing stolen property. The indictment is regular in all respects and is sufficiеnt.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County is, in pertinent part, as follows:
“This the 16th day of March, 1960, came Emmett Perry, Solicitor, who *348 prosecutes for the State of Alabama, and also came the defendant in his own proper person and by attorney, and the defendant being present in оpen court and the case being ready and defendant’s attorney, Arthur Parker, not being here fifty minutes after Court began at 9:00 A.M., as announced, it is ordered by the Court that Hon. C. E. Huey, a duly licensed and prаcticing attorney of Jefferson County, Alabama be appointed to represent the defendant;
“And on this the 17th day of March, 1960, defendant being duly arraigned upon the indictment in this cause, for his plеa thereto says that he is not guilty, and issue being joined on said plea, thereupon came а jury of good and lawful men, to-wit: R. B. Reid and eleven others, who being empanel-led and sworn according to law, before whom the trial of this cause was entered upon and continued from day to day, and from time to time, said defendant being in open Court at each and every stage and during all the proceedings in this cause; at 2:20 P.M., Arthur Parker, attorney, appeared and joined in defense of defendant to conclusion; now on this the 17th day of March, 1960, said jurors upon then-oaths do sаy: ‘We the jury find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment and fix the value of the stolen property аt $2500.00.’ ”
The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of six years.
An appeal was taken to this court from said judgment, on the record proper, and the cause was affirmed without an opinion on May 31, 1960.
A hearing was had in the habeas corpus proceеding, and the court determined that petitioner was not illegally restrained of his liberty and was not entitlеd to his discharge.
It is alleged in the petition for the writ that petitioner was forced into the trial of his case in the absence of his chosen counsel, and that he was “refused a continuanсe of (20) twenty minutes,” in order that he might locate his attorney and procure his attendance on the trial. In brief, petitioner asserts that the refusal of a continuance under the circumstances was a violation of his constitutional rights of due process and equal protection undеr the law.
There is nothing in the record before us which tends to show that the prisoner requested or wаs refused a continuance because of the absence of counsel. Mackreth v. Wilson,
It is well settled that when a judgment or sentence of another court is returned as the cause of the petitioner’s detention or imprisonment, the jurisdiction of the court to render such judgment or sentence is the only matter which may be considered. Ex parte Bizzell,
It affirmatively appears from the record that the Circuit Court оf Jefferson County had jurisdiction to render the judgment and pronounce the sentence, and that thе proceedings were regular in all respects.
Appellant’s argument in the court below аnd here that court appointed counsel representing him upon the trial was “inadequate,” raises no jurisdictional question. Mackreth v. Wilson, supra, but merely asserts an error or irregularity not reviewable on habeas corpus. Griffin v. State, supra.
The judgment of the court denying habeas corpus is affirmed.
Affirmed.