Ex parte Miller, A-11942
| Citation | 97 Okla.Crim. 351,263 P.2d 522 |
| Decision Date | 18 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. A-11942,A-11942 |
| Parties | Ex parte MILLER. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Costs taxed in criminal proceedings must bear a true relation to the expenses of the prosecution.
2. The term costs ordinarily includes only items connected with the actual presentation of testimony and the fees of specified officers.
3. The assessment of $2 sought to be collected herein for the Police Pension Fund is not a necessary item of cost, incident to the actual presentation of testimony, and the fees of specified officers connected therewith, and §§ 542, 542a, 542b, 542c, 542d, Title 11 O.S. 1941, are invalid.
Paul Updegraff, Norman, for petitioner.
Hez J. Bussey, County Atty., Norman, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an original action by petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought by Gene Roland Miller. In said petition he alleges that he is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty by Olen Garner Sheriff of Cleveland county, Oklahoma, by reason of his failure to serve out $2 assessed as costs for the Pension and Retirement System for Policemen. Petitioner alleges that said attempted assessment is under and by virtue of the provisions of the legislative act known as Laws of 1941, page 30, § 1, as amended, Laws 1949, page 81, § 4; Laws 1949, page 82, § 1, Title 11 O.S.A. § 542, providing there should be taxed, collected and assessed in every criminal case upon conviction of any violation of a state law, whether the same be a felony or misdemeanor, the sum of $2 for the Pension and Retirement System for Policemen. Provision is made in the act for the payment of this item, when collected, into said fund which is available to be used for the establishment of a Pension and Retirement System for Policemen.
Petitioner alleges that the said act is unconstitutional. A Rule to Show Cause was issued out of this court and the petitioner was released on bond pending a determination of the issues herein. Response was made by Olen Garner, Sheriff of Cleveland county, Oklahoma, by and through his lawful representative, the county attorney of Cleveland county, Oklahoma. In said response it was agreed that the sole question presented is the constitutionality of Title 11 O.S.A. §§ 542, 542a, 542b, 542c. It is further conceded by the county attorney of Cleveland county, Oklahoma, in said reponse, that the issues herein involved and the principles applicable thereto fall within a prior decision of this court, Ex parte Coffelt, 93 Okl.Cr. 343, 228 P.2d 199, holding that costs taxed in criminal proceedings must bear a true relation to the expenses of the prosecution. The term costs ordinarily includes only items connected with the actual presentation of testimony and the fees of specified officers. 20 C.J.S., Costs, § 453, p. 694. Such is the situation before us herein. We cannot in truth say that the assessment of $2 sought to be collected herein is a necessary item of cost, incident to the actual presentation of testimony, and the fees...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Titus v. Hayes
...$1.00 assessed against him in addition to the regular costs of the prosecution. To the same effect is the later case of Ex Parte Miller, 97 Okl.Cr. 351, 263 P.2d 522, also a habeas corpus proceeding, in which the Criminal Court of Appeals held that the imprisonment of the petitioner because......
-
People v. Barber
...against a convicted defendant of $2, an amount to be paid to the pension and retirement system for policemen. Ex parte Miller (1953), 97 Okl.Cr. 351, 263 P.2d 522. The court again founded its decision on the conclusion that the prescribed assessment could not be considered incident to the a......
-
Carter v. City of Norfolk
...question of legislative authority respecting costs, Ex parte Coffelt, 93 Okl.Crim. 343, 228 P.2d 199 (1951), and Ex parte Miller, 97 Okl.Crim. 351, 263 P.2d 522 (1953). The act held unconstitutional in Coffelt provided for the assessment of costs in criminal cases for the state parole fund.......
-
State v. Ballard, S-91-769
...they denied indigent defendants equal access to the courts under Art. II, § 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution. See Ex Parte Miller, 97 Okl.Cr. 351, 263 P.2d 522, 523 (1954); Ex Parte Coffelt, 93 Okl.Cr. 343, 228 P.2d 199, 202-03 (1951). However, we note 28 O.S. § 101 at the time of these holdi......