History
  • No items yet
midpage
Montague v. Conte
3 Wash. App. 687
Wash. Ct. App.
1970
Check Treatment
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.

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.

Case Details

Case Name: Montague v. Conte
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Washington
Date Published: Nov 25, 1970
Citation: 3 Wash. App. 687
Docket Number: No. 269-3
Court Abbreviation: Wash. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.