Barnett v. Brett, No. A-13674

CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtBUSSEY
Citation401 P.2d 532
PartiesRobert Charles BARNETT, Petitioner, v. John A. BRETT, Supernumerary Judge of District Court, 7th Judicial District, Respondent.
Decision Date16 April 1965
Docket NumberNo. A-13674

Page 532

401 P.2d 532
Robert Charles BARNETT, Petitioner,
v.
John A. BRETT, Supernumerary Judge of District Court, 7th
Judicial District, Respondent.
No. A-13674.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
April 16, 1965.

Page 533

Syllabus by the Court

1. The writ of prohibition is that process by which an appellate court prevents an inferior court from usurping, or exercising unauthorized jurisdiction.

2. Prohibition being an extraordinary writ, it cannot be resorted to when the ordinary and usual remedies at law are available.

3. The question of whether the trial court has abused its discretion in granting or denying a motion for continuance is reviewable only on appeal, and prohibition will not issue to correct an abuse of that discretion.

4. It is the solemn responsibility of trial judges to make rulings on questions of law arising before them, and the writ of prohibition cannot be invoked, to secure from the Court of Criminal Appeals an advisory opinion, on matters which are addressed to the discretion of the trial judges, and for which they must assume the responsibility.

This is an application to assume jurisdiction. Application denied.

Archibald B. Hill, Jr., Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Curtis P. Harris, Oklahoma County Atty., Oklahoma City, for respondent.

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

The sole question presented for our consideration is whether this Court should entertain jurisdiction and prohibit a trial court from further proceeding in a criminal case, over which the trial court is acting, within the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law.

The answer, we believe, is implicit in the question unless we are to deviate from the well established principles governing the issuance of the extraordinary writ of prohibition.

We have uniformly held that the writ of prohibition is that process by which an appellate court prevents an inferior court from usurping, or exercising unauthorized jurisdiction; and further, prohibition being an extraordinary writ, it cannot be resorted to when the ordinary and usual remedies at law are available.

In the instant case the trial court has denied the petitioner's motion for continuance in District Court Case No. 30130 notwithstanding the provisions of Title 12 O.S. § 667 which provides:

'The court may, for good cause shown, continue an action at any stage of the proceedings upon terms as may be just; provided, that if a party or his attorney of record is serving as a member of the Legislature or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Morrisey v. W. Va. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, No. 14–0587.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 14, 2014
    ...is obvious that “the writ of prohibition cannot be invoked[ ] to secure from th[is] Court ... an advisory opinion [.]” Barnett v. Brett, 401 P.2d 532, 534 (Okla.Crim.App.1965). See also State ex rel. ACF Indus., Inc. v. Vieweg, 204 W.Va. 525, 533 n. 13, 514 S.E.2d 176, 184 n. 13 (1999) (dec......
  • State v. W. Va. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, No. 14-0587
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • October 15, 2014
    ...is obvious that "the writ of prohibition cannot be invoked[] to secure from th[is] Court . . . an advisory opinion[.]" Barnett v. Brett, 401 P.2d 532, 534 (Okla. Crim. App. 1965). See also State ex rel. ACF Indus., Inc. v. Vieweg, 204 W. Va. 525, 533 n.13, 514 S.E.2d 176, 184 n.13 (1999) (d......
  • Canady v. Reynolds, Nos. O-94-308
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 24, 1994
    ...trial court to exercise the powers confided to it. We will not do so absent constitutional or statutory authority."); Barnett v. Brett, 401 P.2d 532, 534 (Okl.Cr.1965) ("It is the solemn responsibility of trial judges to make rulings on questions of law arising before them, and the writ of ......
  • F.S.T., Inc. v. Hancock Cnty. Comm'n, No. 17-0016
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • October 20, 2017
    ...is obvious that "the writ of prohibition cannot be invoked[ ] to secure from th[is] Court . . . an advisory opinion[.]" Barnett v. Brett, 401 P.2d 532, 534 (Okla.Crim.App.1965). See also State ex rel. ACF Indus., Inc. v. Vieweg, 204 W.Va. 525, 533 n. 13, 514 S.E.2d 176, 184 n. 13 (1999) (de......
4 cases
  • State ex rel. Morrisey v. W. Va. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, No. 14–0587.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 14, 2014
    ...is obvious that “the writ of prohibition cannot be invoked[ ] to secure from th[is] Court ... an advisory opinion [.]” Barnett v. Brett, 401 P.2d 532, 534 (Okla.Crim.App.1965). See also State ex rel. ACF Indus., Inc. v. Vieweg, 204 W.Va. 525, 533 n. 13, 514 S.E.2d 176, 184 n. 13 (1999) (dec......
  • State v. W. Va. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, No. 14-0587
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • October 15, 2014
    ...is obvious that "the writ of prohibition cannot be invoked[] to secure from th[is] Court . . . an advisory opinion[.]" Barnett v. Brett, 401 P.2d 532, 534 (Okla. Crim. App. 1965). See also State ex rel. ACF Indus., Inc. v. Vieweg, 204 W. Va. 525, 533 n.13, 514 S.E.2d 176, 184 n.13 (1999) (d......
  • Canady v. Reynolds, Nos. O-94-308
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • August 24, 1994
    ...trial court to exercise the powers confided to it. We will not do so absent constitutional or statutory authority."); Barnett v. Brett, 401 P.2d 532, 534 (Okl.Cr.1965) ("It is the solemn responsibility of trial judges to make rulings on questions of law arising before them, and the writ of ......
  • F.S.T., Inc. v. Hancock Cnty. Comm'n, No. 17-0016
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • October 20, 2017
    ...is obvious that "the writ of prohibition cannot be invoked[ ] to secure from th[is] Court . . . an advisory opinion[.]" Barnett v. Brett, 401 P.2d 532, 534 (Okla.Crim.App.1965). See also State ex rel. ACF Indus., Inc. v. Vieweg, 204 W.Va. 525, 533 n. 13, 514 S.E.2d 176, 184 n. 13 (1999) (de......

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