Whaley v. District Court of Mayes County
| Decision Date | 28 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. A--14124,A--14124 |
| Citation | 422 P.2d 227 |
| Parties | Edward McCarey WHALEY, #72950, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT OF MAYES COUNTY, Ray Page, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, and the State of Oklahoma, Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where petitioner's prayer was to require county authorities to dismiss a detainer which allegedly prevented him from being paroled, action was one for mandamus, rather than habeas corpus or post conviction appeal.
2. It is practice of Court of Criminal Appeals to determine nature of cause by allegations in body of petition and prayer, rather than heading, particularly where petitioner is not trained in law and files pro se 3. By statute the payment of costs of the prosecution is made a part of the punishment, and it is provided that payment shall be enforced by imprisonment in the county jail until the same be satisfied. 28 Okl.St.Ann. § 101.
Original proceeding in which Edward McCarey Whaley seeks dismissal of detainer or hold order filed with authorities of State Penitentiary. Writ denied.
Edward McCarey Whaley, pro se.
Charles Nesbitt, Atty. Gen., Hugh H. Collum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Edward McCarey Whaley has filed in this Court, without the assistance of counsel, an instrument entitled Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Post Conviction Appeal.
Petitioner alleges that he was charged in the district court of Mayes County, Oklahoma with the crime of obtaining money under false pretense. That he entered a plea of guilty to such charge, and was sentenced to serve five years in the State Penitentiary, where he is now confined.
Petitioner states that the State Pardon and Parole Board has heretofore recommended him for parole, but by reason of a hold order placed against him at the State Penitentiary for the court costs in his Mayes County trial, the parole has not been granted. In his petition he asks only that the hold order be dismissed. It has long been the practice of this Court that a cause is determined by the allegations in the body of the petition, and the prayer, rather than the heading, and particularly where the petitioner is not trained in the law, and files pro se. Thus, this action is treated as one in mandamus, rather than habeas corpus.
Title 28 Okl.St.Ann. § 101 provides, among other things, that all costs of the prosecution of all criminal actions shall, in case of a conviction of the defendant, be adjudged a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hammond
...has failed to allege the necessary elements in the Information for the crime of Assault and Battery ...." In Whaley v. District Court of Mayes County, 422 P.2d 227 (Okl.Cr.1966), we held that the character of a pleading is to be determined by the allegations in its body and the prayer for r......
-
Webb v. Maynard, 79934
...a part of the punishment upon conviction. Ex parte Arnett, 93 Okla.Crim. 116, 225 P.2d 381 (App.1950); Whaley v. District Court of Mayes County, 422 P.2d 227 (Okla.Crim.App.1966). The Legislature has authorized the withdrawal of a portion of an inmate's prison wages to apply towards those c......
-
Galcatcher v. Page, A--14471
...returned to the county jail of such county, in order to satisfy said costs as provided in the statutes. See: Whaley v. District Court of Mayes County, Okl.Cr.App., 422 P.2d 227. Further, the relief sought by petitioner is a matter concerning the internal administration of the state penitent......