This is an appeal from an order of the district cоurt denying a writ of habeas corpus.
On April 21, 1954, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge оf robbery in the first degree, which offense is punishable under Minn. St. 619.42 by imprisonment of not less than 5 nor more than 40 years. On Aрril 22, 1954, the defendant was sentenced “to the State Prison at Stillwater, Minnesota, at hard labor until releasеd by competent authority or due process of law.” At the time he was sentenced, the defendant hаd not quite reached his 22nd birthday. He should have been committed to a state reformatory. Section 243.76, subd. 1, provides that—
“* * * any male person of more than 18 yеars of age and not more than 25 years of age shall, * * * when the court shall decide that asentence to a state penal institution is the proper punishment, be sentenced to the state reformatory for men, * *
The defendant, who is now 30 years of agе, asserts that he is entitled to a discharge becаuse “[t]he sentence is invalid as the sentencing cоurt was without power to render a judgment of confinement in the state prison.”
The defendant does not allege his innocence or that the convictiоn itself violates his constitutional rights. He voluntarily entered a plea of guilty after consulting with his attorney. Essentially the function of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve one from unlawful restraint. In reviewing a denial оf the writ our concern is primarily directed to the question of whether the committing court had jurisdiction of the crime and of the person of the defendant; whеther the sentence was authorized by law; and whethеr the defendant was denied fundamental constitutional rights. Breeding v. Swenson,
In the case before us the judgment of conviction on his plea of guilty was valid. The irregulаrity which occurred in the provisions of the sentence did not affect the validity of the judgment of conviction. We assume that in a case of this kind propеr practice would be to remand to the trial сourt for correction of the sentence, аs in State v. Pederson,
“* * * The relator in this casе will attain his 30th birthday within about two months, and any action on our part to remand the prisoner for the purpоse indicated would bring but little relief and may well be adjusted under the provisions of M. S. A. Section 243.77 (formerly 640.36) should said sеction be applicable in this matter.”
We agrеe with the trial court that any relief to which the defendant might be entitled must be secured by administrative procedures and is not available by habeas corpus.
Affirmed.