Baker v. Kaiser, 70836

Citation793 P.2d 877
Decision Date29 May 1990
Docket NumberNo. 70836,No. 3,70836,3
Parties1990 OK CIV APP 46 George BAKER, Appellant, v. Stephen KAISER, Warden at Lexington Correctional Center, Appellee. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County; Preston Trimble, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

George Baker, Lexington, pro se.

Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., A. Diane Hammons, OBA, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ADAMS, Judge:

George Baker, apparently an inmate at Lexington Correctional Center, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Petition for Writ of Mandamus on or about March 28, 1988. On March 31, 1988, the trial court, without response from the appellee, denied the petition stating, "application denied based upon the pleadings". The trial court gave no other reason for this summary denial of Baker's claim.

The entire record on appeal consists of the trial court's order and Baker's three page petition including an affidavit. Baker's petition alleges the Lexington Correctional Center Disciplinary Committee deprived him of 45 days of earned credit without affording due process. He supports that allegation by stating in his affidavit "at no time before or after findings of guilty by 3/0 vote did I receive a written statement of reasons by the fact finders for guilty." He argues, on appeal, that such a statement is required under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

While Baker's petition does not technically comply with 12 O.S.1981 § 1332 as an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1 it satisfies the requirements of 12 O.S.1981 § 1455 that motion for mandamus be made upon affidavit. Accordingly, the only possible basis to support the trial court's order is a conclusion that Baker's petition, on its face, failed to state a claim for mandamus. On this record, we must hold Baker's petition stated facts which, if true, would entitle him to Writ of Mandamus directing correction authorities to comply with the requirements in Wolff. The trial court erred in dismissing the petition without giving all parties an opportunity to demonstrate the truth or falsity of those allegations.

In Mitchell v. Meachum, 770 P.2d 887 (Okla.1988), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held an inmate has a state created liberty interest in earned credits and is therefore entitled due process protection before those credits may be lost. In evaluating the due process requirements, the Mitchell court stated at page 891:

"Wolff requires in the context of state prison disciplinary proceedings that the inmate must be afforded: (1) advance written notice of the claim violation; (2) a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action; and (3) the right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • October 23, 1995
  • Waldon v. Evans, H-92-270
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • September 30, 1993
    ...by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, Mitchell v. Meachum, 770 P.2d 887 (Okla.1988) and Baker v. Kaiser, 793 P.2d 877 (Okla.Ct.App.1990). The Oklahoma Supreme Court transferred the appeal to this Court for disposition after finding and concluding that credit time ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT