Barnett v. Brett

• Citation: 401 P.2d 532
• Decision Date: 16 April 1965
• Docket Number: No. A-13674,A-13674
• Parties: Robert Charles BARNETT, Petitioner, v. John A. BRETT, Supernumerary Judge of District Court, 7th Judicial District, Respondent.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

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.

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 the Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, or within thirty (30) days after an adjournment of a session of the Legislature, such fact shall...