Wald v. Crisp, O-77-545
| Decision Date | 16 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. O-77-545,O-77-545 |
| Citation | 568 P.2d 316 |
| Parties | James Edward WALD, Petitioner, v. Richard CRISP, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Petitioner, James Edward Wald, has filed in this Court a pro se writ entitled "Appeal From Denial of Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Mandamus," which we shall treat as a petition for writ of mandamus. The petitioner asserts that he is presently incarcerated in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, serving a term of ten (10) years' imprisonment for Armed Robbery as the result of the judgment and sentence received in the Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CRF-72-951. He alleges that he is entitled to 81 days incentive good time and 60 days work time, which he has not received and which he has been refused by the warden. Petitioner prays this Court to compel a credit of said time to his record.
Petitioner does not allege that if granted these credits he would be entitled to release. Recently, we stated in Shelton v. Crisp, Okl.Cr., 565 P.2d 53, 54 (1977), that "In cases involving time computation, Writ of Mandamus will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates that he is entitled to release and that he has sought the proper administrative relief."
For the reason above set forth, we find the present application for Writ of Mandamus to be prematurely filed. We further observe that in the event the petitioner asserts in a future application that he is entitled to immediate relief, if credits are granted, he should set forth with specificity the time and dates these credits were earned and cite the authority under which he claims these credits. For the purpose of an application for a Writ of Mandamus to correct time computations, any petition filed in excess of 60 days prior to the claimed date of release will be deemed to be prematurely filed.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus should be, and the same is, hereby, DISMISSED.
WITNESS OUR HANDS, and the Seal of this Court, this 16th day of August, 1977.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waldon v. Evans, H-92-270
...The District Court, assumably relying on this Court's decisions in Ekstrand v. State, 791 P.2d 92 (Okl.Cr.1990) and Wald v. Crisp, 568 P.2d 316 (Okl.Cr.1977), declined jurisdiction regarding the earned credits because Appellant failed to show that, even if his arguments were correct, he wou......
-
Scales v. Walters, 83589
...the prisoner would be entitled to immediate release and that he has pursued the appropriate administrative remedies. Wald v. Crisp, 568 P.2d 316, 316 (Okla.Crim.App.1977); Shelton v. Crisp, 565 P.2d 53, 54 (Okla.Crim.App.1977). The same rule applies to matters related to consideration for p......