Mahler v. State, PC-89-560
| Decision Date | 05 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. PC-89-560,PC-89-560 |
| Citation | 783 P.2d 973 |
| Parties | Melvin Leroy MAHLER, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, and Stephen W. Kaiser, Warden, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
On June 20, 1989, this Court issued an order granting post conviction relief to Petitioner; and by so doing, we exercised appellate review of a decision of the Department of Corrections regarding the amount of credit that should be applied to Petitioner's sentences. On October 10, 1989, we issued an Order Withdrawing Order wherein we held that this Court did not have the proper jurisdiction to issue the Order of June 20, 1989, due to the fact that the process of granting credits to an inmate's sentence is an administrative function of the Department of Corrections, and as such is not reviewable by this Court. Appellate review of administrative procedures is properly a matter for the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Carder v. State, 595 P.2d 416 (Okl.1979). We therefore find that this order is necessary to conclude the matter pending in this Court.
There must be an attack upon the conviction or imposition of sentence to invoke the authority of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, 22 O.S.1981, § 1080, et seq. This case does not involve such an attack. It is a complaint about the administration of the sentence by the Department of Corrections. The only possible method by which this Court could obtain jurisdiction is by means of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he would be entitled to immediate release if such a writ were granted. This is a necessary prerequisite for such a writ. See In re Salisbury, 363 P.2d 380, 381 (Okl.Cr.1961). Petitioner has alleged his action is properly brought pursuant to the provisions of 22 O.S.1981, § 1080(e) and (f). However, the provisions of Article 2, § 10 of the Oklahoma Constitution must control in this case. The provisions of 22 O.S.1981, § 1080 attempt to replace the constitutional guarantee of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. This privilege cannot be suspended by the authorities of the State. Allowing a statute to replace the constitutional provisions subjects the right to vacation or limitation by the statutory language. Therefore, we find that the Post-Conviction Procedure Act applies only to challenges to the original conviction and imposition of sentence, and is properly instituted in the court in which the judgment and sentence were imposed. Challenges...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington v. Commissioner of Correction
...presentence confinement credit contemplates administrative rather than judicial determination of credit to be awarded); Mahler v. State, 783 P.2d 973, 973-74 (Okla.Crim.App.) (process of granting credit to inmate's sentence is administrative function of department of corrections), cert. and......
-
Hill v. Town of Valley Brook
...Stat. tit. 22, § 1080.23 Daniels v. State , 2017 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 28, at *3 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017) (quoting Mahler v. State , 783 P.2d 973, 974 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989) ).24 Hatch v. State , 924 P.2d 284, 294 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996), certiorari denied , 518 U.S. 1042, 117 S.Ct. 15, 13......
-
Tinnin v. Denton
...outside the scope of the Post-Conviction Procedure Act." Id. at 3-5. Inreaching this conclusion, the OCCA cited Mahler v. State, 783 P.2d 973, 974 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989), for the proposition that Oklahoma's "Post-Conviction Procedure Act applies only to challenges to the original convictio......
-
Ekstrand v. State, H-89-1275
...on December 5, 1989, we issued a final order disposing of the original proceeding that was still pending in this Court. Mahler v. State, 783 P.2d 973 (Okl.Cr.1989). We explained that a complaint concerning earned time credits is not properly brought under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, ......