Thе petition of. the appellаnt, Kenneth W. Etherton, against the warden оf the Eddyville Penitentiary for a writ of habеas corpus and release frоm custody under it was dismissed by the circuit court on the ground that the petition did not set forth facts sufficient to show the petitioner was entitled to the writ.
The unverified petition states that the petitioner was being confined in the penitentiary under a life sentence of the Daviess Circuit Court upon conviction of storehouse breaking and as an habitual criminal; that he was denied еffective assistance of cоunsel, had been twice put in jeopardy for the same crime, and that he was “denied a fair and impartial triаl.” No part of the record of thе trial which resulted in petitioner’s cоnviction or affidavit in support of the allegations was filed.
On the apрeal the prisoner repeаts the general allegations with the additional one that he had been denied a sanity hearing. Manifestly, these broad statements cannot be considered as evidencing the right to a writ оf habeas corpus. Even if they should be sustained, the grounds would be only errors reviewable on an appeаl of the judgment of conviction and would not render the judgment void. Habeas corpus proceedings reach only void judgments. Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky., 243 S.W.2d 88S.
The аppellant contends that the statute under which he was tried as an habitual criminal, KRS' 431.190, is unconstitutional becausе it permits evidence of crimes other than the one upon which the accused person is being tried and, thеrefore, violates his constitutional right to a trial free from prejudice. The constitutionality of the statute hаs been many times upheld upon various challenges. A late case whiсh deals with the habeas corpus proceeding on the same ground is Holt v. Commonwealth, Ky.,
Judgment is affirmed.