On Petition for Rehearing.
On Junе 10, 1941, the relator filed a petition seeking a writ prohibiting the respondent *19 from issuing a writ of habeas corpus on the petition of one John Botwinski.
It appears without controversy thаt Botwinski was charged with bank robbery in the Jasper Circuit Court, a court of general criminal jurisdiction; that he entered a plea of guilty; that there was a judgment finding him guilty; and that he was sentenced to the Indiana State Prison, and a cоmmitment, regular in form, issued on said judgment, and that he was held by the relator under said judgment. These facts were fully disclosed and were not controverted in the trial court. It was the рetitioner’s contention that the judgment was void because he was deprived of the services of an attorney at the time of his arraignment, and had no attorney at the time he entered his plea of guilty. On the filing of the originаl action in this court, a temporary writ issued, and, after а return, which did not controvert thése facts, the writ was made permanent by an order of this court entered on June 23, 1941, withоut an opinion.
On petition for rehearing, the respondent points to Section 5 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Indiana, which provides: “The Supreme Court shall, upon thе decision of every case, give a statement in writing оf each question arising in the record of such case, and the decision of the Court thereon,” and asserts that the court erred in failing to file a written opinion upоn final disposition of the case. It has been concluded that the respondent is right in his contention, and that the сonstitutional provision requires an opinion in writing in original actions as well as in appeals.
*20
*19
Courts of a cоunty in which a State Prison is located have no jurisdiction tо issue writs of
habeas corpus
in
*20
an action against the warden on behalf of a prisoner held upon a writ issued in execution of a judgment by a court of general criminal jurisdiction where the judgment and commitment are regular upon their face; and it is the duty of such courts to refuse to exercise jurisdiсtion, and to dismiss the petition when it is made to appеar that the petitioner is held under such a proceeding. If the trial court which rendered the judgment upon which thе commitment is based committed error in depriving the defendant of some constitutional right, the remedy is in the court rеndering the judgment, or by appeal to this court. This rule has been announced so often, so clearly and so emphatically, that another 'opinion announcing it shоuld not reasonably seem necessary. Another oрinion can add no light for the guidance of bench and bаr. The earlier cases are collected in
State ex rel. Kunkel et al.
v.
Circuit Court of LaPorte County
(1936),
But it is contended that the petitioner had no remedy by motiоn for a new trial or coram nobis proceeding. If so, it must be chargеable to his own inexcusable neglect, since otherwise there is opportunity to correct error by one method or the other. The question of whether or not the committing court committed error can be of no concern to the LaPorte Superior Court, ■ since it has no jurisdiction to detérmine whether there was error.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Note.—Reported in 36 N. E. (2d) 765.