Gill v. Raines, A-13339
| Decision Date | 06 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. A-13339,A-13339 |
| Citation | 378 P.2d 778 |
| Parties | Oscar GILL, Petitioner, v. R. R. RAINES, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In order to be entitled to writ of habeas corpus, one must be illegally restrained of his liberty. 12 O.S.A. § 1331.
2. The Court of Criminal Appeals has no authority to order the removal of a
detainer or hold order placed by another state with the warden of the State Penitentiary against an inmate of the Penitentiary who is serving under a valid judgment and sentence.
Original proceeding in which Oscar Gill seeks to have a detainer placed against him by the State of Arkansas dismissed. Writ denied.
Oscar Gill, #64386, petitioner, pro se.
Charles Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., Hugh H. Collum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent Warden.
The petitioner, Oscar Gill, seeks by writ of habeas corpus to secure the dismissal of a certain hold order, or detainer, placed against him by the District Attorney of De-Queen, Arkansas with the Warden of the State Penitentiary.
(1) It appears that the petitioner was charged in the district court of Sequoyah County with robbery with firearms, and on a plea of guilty was, at the November, 1960 term of said court sentenced to five years in the State Penitentiary. The petitioner makes no allegation that he is being improperly or illegally held at this time, under these proceedings.
He states that a detainer or hold order has been placed against him with the Warden of the State Penitentiary by the State of Arkansas, and prays that this detainer or hold order be removed and that he be relieved of 'the prejudicial effects of the unfounded detainer.'
The petition herein, while labelled petition for writ of habeas corpus, is in the nature of a petition for writ of mandamus. Ex parte Cameron, 91 Okl.Cr. 317, 218 P.2d 654.
(2) The Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma has no jurisdiction over the authorities of the State of Arkansas, or authority to order the dismissal of the retainer or hold order filed against this petitioner by the State of Arkansas. Langham v. Cochran, Okl.Cr., 357 P.2d 583.
The validity of the judgment and sentence under which this petitioner is presently held is not involved, and it is evident that there is no legal duty imposed on the Court of Criminal Appeals to entertain this proceeding, and upon that ground, the application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woolen v. Coffman
...County Sheriff's Office, 531 P.2d 1063 (Okl.Cr.1975) (post-conviction application treated as petition for mandamus); and Gill v. Raines, 378 P.2d 778 (Okl.Cr.1963) (petition for habeas corpus treated as petition for Mandamus is a command from a court of law of competent jurisdiction in the ......
-
Trotter v. Page, A-13850
...properly filed against a prisoner in the State Penitentiary by a foreign State. Langham v. Cochran, Okl. Cr., 357 P.2d 583; Gill v. Raines, Okl. Cr., 378 P.2d 778. The demurrer of the Respondent is sustained, and the petition for writ of mandamus is denied, and the petition BUSSEY, P. J., a......