Bailey v. Oklahoma

1968 OK CR 225, 448 P.2d 288, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 457
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedDecember 11, 1968
DocketNo. A-14875
StatusPublished

This text of 1968 OK CR 225 (Bailey v. Oklahoma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bailey v. Oklahoma, 1968 OK CR 225, 448 P.2d 288, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 457 (Okla. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an original proceeding in which Billy Frank Bailey petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus or post-conviction appeal. The single challenge to the judgment and sentence offered by Petitioner is that his sentence is excessive in view of the fact that his co-defendants, both with previous records, received five year sentences while Petitioner, with no previous record, received a ten year sentence.

The records indicate that on September 1, 1965, Petitioner, while represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of first degree robbery in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, case No. 30955, and received a ten year sentence with eight and one-half years suspended. On March 2, 1967, the District Court entered an order revoking the suspended portion of the sentence. Since the only basis on which the Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus or post-conviction appeal is based upon the allegation of an excessive sentence, we find that the application must be dismissed. As this Court held in Williams v. State, Okl.Cr., 392 P.2d 65:

“The question as to whether or not the sentence imposed is cruel, excessive, and unjust will not be considered by this court on a writ of habeas corpus, this [289]*289being a question that could only be reviewed on appeal.”

For the foregoing reasons the application for writ of habeas corpus or post-conviction appeal is denied. Writ denied.

This application was assigned to the Referee, Mr. PENN LERBLANCE, by the Presiding Judge of this Court. The foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law were submitted by the Referee and approved and adopted by the Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Williams v. State
1964 OK CR 51 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1968 OK CR 225, 448 P.2d 288, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-oklahoma-oklacrimapp-1968.