At common law the general rule undoubtedly was that where an erroneous judgment was entered by a trial court, or an erroneous sentence imposed, on a valid indictment, the appellate court, on error, could not itself render such a judgment as the trial court should have rendered or remit the case to the trial court with directions for it to do so, but the only thing it could do was to reverse the judgment and discharge the defendant. This rule was recognized in England in the case of The King v. Bourne, 7 Ad. & El. 58, where the Court of King's Bench reversed the judgment of the Court of Quarter Sessions, and discharged the defendants because the sentence imposed upon them by that court was of a lower grade than that which the law provided for the crime of which they had been convicted.
Some of the States in which the common law prevails, or is
But whether this practice in the State of Washington is warranted, under a correct construction of said § 1429 of the code, or whether, if it is, that section violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, in that it operates to deprive a defendant whose case is governed by it of his liberty without due process of law, we do not feel called upon to determine in this case, because we are of opinion that, for other reasons, the writ of habeas corpus was properly refused.
While the writ of habeas corpus is one of the remedies for the enforcement of the right to personal freedom, it will not issue, as a matter of course, and it should be cautiously used by the federal courts in reference to state prisoners. Being a civil process it cannot be converted into a remedy for the correction of mere errors of judgment or of procedure in the court having cognizance of the criminal offence. Under the writ of habeas corpus, this court can exercise no appellate jurisdiction over the proceedings of the trial court or courts of the State, nor review their conclusions of law or fact, and pronounce them erroneous. The writ of habeas corpus is not a proceeding for the correction of errors. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371; Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371; Ex parte Carll, 106 U.S. 521; Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417; Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241; In re Snow, 120 U.S. 274; In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731; In re Wight, petitioner, 134 U.S. 136; Stevens v. Fuller, 136 U.S. 468.
As was said by this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Harlan, in Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 252, 253, "where a person is in custody, under process from a state court of original
The office of a writ of habeas corpus and the cases in which it will generally be awarded was clearly stated by Mr. Justice Bradley speaking for the court in Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 375, as follows: "The only ground on which this court, or any court, without some special statute authorizing it, will give relief on habeas corpus to a prisoner under conviction and sentence of another court is the want of jurisdiction in such court over the person or the cause, or some other matter rendering its proceedings void. This distinction between an erroneous judgment and one that is illegal or void is well illustrated by the two cases of Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, and Ex parte Parks, 93 U.S. 18. In the former case we held that the judgment was void, and released the prisoner accordingly; in the latter we held that the judgment, whether erroneous or not, was not void because the court had jurisdiction of the cause, and we refused to interfere." The reason of this rule lies in the fact that a habeas corpus proceeding is a collateral attack of a civil nature to impeach the validity of a judgment or sentence of another court in a criminal proceeding, and it should, therefore, be limited to cases in which the judgment or sentence attacked is clearly void by reason of its having been rendered without jurisdiction, or by reason of the court's having exceeded its jurisdiction in the premises.
We adhere to the views expressed in that case. It is certainly the better practice, in cases of this kind, to put the prisoner to his remedy by writ of error from this court, under section 709 of the Revised Statutes, than to award him a writ of habeas corpus. For, under proceedings by writ of error, the validity of the judgment against him can be called in question, and the federal court left in a position to correct the
In some instances, as in Medley, petitioner, 134 U.S. 160, the proceeding by habeas corpus has been entertained, although a writ of error could be prosecuted; but the general rule and better practice, in the absence of special facts and circumstances, is to require a prisoner who claims that the judgment of a state court violates his rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States, to seek a review thereof by writ of error instead of resorting to the writ of habeas corpus.
In the present case we agree with the court below that the petitioner had open to him the remedy by writ of error from this court for the correction of whatever injury may have been done to him by the action of the state courts, and that he should have been put to that remedy, rather than given the remedy by writ of habeas corpus. The Circuit Court had authority to exercise its discretion in the premises, and we do not see that there was any improper exercise of that discretion, under the facts and circumstances.
Without passing, therefore, upon the merits of the question as to the constitutionality of the provision of the code under which the Supreme Court proceeded in disposing of the case, when it was before it, or upon the question of the validity of the judgments rendered by the state courts in the case, we are of opinion, for the reasons stated, that the order of the Circuit Court refusing the application for the writ of habeas corpus was correct, and it is accordingly