Harrell v. State
| Decision Date | 19 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. A--17212,A--17212 |
| Citation | 493 P.2d 461 |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
| Parties | Roy M. HARRELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent. |
Roy M. Harrell, pro se.
Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an appeal from the denial of post conviction relief in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CRF--69--246, wherein the trial court, after reviewing the records, made findings of fact and conclusions of law, which findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by the record and adopted by this Court and appended hereto.
For the reasons therein stated, the trial court's denial of post conviction relief is affirmed, and Petitioner is advised that he has now exhausted all of his state remedies.
-vs-
Roy M. Harrell, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
This matter comes on for hearing on the application of Roy M. Harrell for Post-Conviction Relief and the response filed by the State.
The court having read said application and response and having examined the files and records in this case, and being fully informed in the premises, and on consideration thereof,
Finds:
1. The defendant was represented by appointed counsel at all stages of the proceedings.
2. This matter involves a question of law only and does not require an evidentiary hearing or the appointment of counsel.
3. The defendant perfected an appeal from the judgment and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which court by written opinion affirmed his conviction (A--15862).
The court further finds that the defendant's application for Post-Conviction Relief raises no question which could not have been raised on the direct appeal and does not raise any matter which would make the judgment of conviction void or voidable under the State or Federal Constitutions. See: State v. Huffman, 186 Neb. 809, 186 N.W.2d 715 (1971); State v. Lincoln, 186 Neb. 783, 186 N.W.2d 490 (1971); People v. Ward, 48 Ill.2d 117, 268 N.E.2d 692 (1971); Wood v. State 206 Kan. 540, 479 P.2d 889 (1971); Powell v. State, 244 So.2d 746 (Fla.App.1971); Orricer v. State, 181 N.W.2d 461 (S.D.1970).
The court further finds that the rule of res judicata barred the claims which the defendant either had raised or could have but failed to raise during his trial or on his appeal. See: People v. Ikerd, 47 Ill.2d 211, 265 N.E.2d 120 (1970); Cantrell v. State, 206 Kan. 323, 478 P.2d 192 (1970); Miller v. State, 82 N.M. 68, 475 P.2d 462 (1970).
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that post-conviction relief be denied and that the application of Roy M. Harrell be, and the same hereby is dismissed.
Done in open court this 22nd day of September, 1971.
(s) Wm. W. Means
I hereby certify that on the date as shown by the filing stamp hereon, I mailed a true and correct copy of the above instrument to:
Roy M. Harrell
Box 97
McAlester, Oklahoma 74501
(s) Ted Flanagan
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Ward
...which could have been raised on direct appeal or in a previous post-conviction proceeding. See, 22 O.S. § 1086; Harrell v. State, 493 P.2d 461 (Okla.Crim. App.1972) (court could not grant post conviction relief where application raised no issue which could not have been raised on direct app......
-
Berget v. State
...L.Ed.2d 146 (1995); Coleman v. State, 693 P.2d 4, 5 (Okl.Cr.1984); Grimes v. State, 512 P.2d 231, 233 (Okl.Cr.1973); Harrell v. State, 493 P.2d 461, 462 (Okl.Cr.1972). We have also determined that the plain language of § 1086 makes it applicable to subsequent post-convictions applications. ......
-
Stafford v. State
...in post conviction proceedings of issues which have been or which could have been raised on direct appeal." See also Harrell v. State, 493 P.2d 461 (Okl.Cr.1972). res judicata 8. No new evidence has been presented which would change this court's opinion in light of the Strickland standard. ......
-
Coleman v. State
...post-conviction proceedings of issues which have been or which could have been raised on direct appeal. See for instance, Harrel v. State, 493 P.2d 461 (Okl.Cr.1972), and cases cited therein. Moreover, even if this issue was properly before this Court it would be meritless. The argument sou......