Combs v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Combs v. State

1969 OK CR 28, 449 P.2d 935, 1969 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 317

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 22, 1969

DocketNo. A-15036

StatusPublished

This text of 1969 OK CR 28 (Combs v. State) 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

Combs v. State, 1969 OK CR 28, 449 P.2d 935, 1969 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 317 (Okla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in which Rousvelt Combs, Oklahoma State Penitentiary Inmate No. 75926, has filed for a mandamus alleging that his fifteen year sentence in the penitentiary is excessive and this violates his constitutional rights. Petitioner argues that his fifteen year sentence for the crimes of robbery and rape are excessive in that his “crime case partner” only received a ten year sentence for the same crimes of robbery and rape.

We find no merit in the argument of Petitioner. It is a familiar rule of this Court that the question as to whether or not a sentence is excessive and thus, cruel and unjust punishment, cannot be considered on habeas corpus, as it is a question reviewable only on appeal when the sentence imposed is within the limits authorized by statute. Farris v. State, Okl.Cr., 327 P.2d 706. Brown v. State, Okl.Cr., 423 P.2d 743. The same rule would be applicable in the instant case even though Petitioner has filed for a mandamus rather than a writ of habeas corpus.

After having fully considered the petition and the premises therein we find that there is nothing alleged which would justify the grant of any relief. Therefore, the above numbered and styled cause is hereby dismissed. 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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in which Rousvelt Combs, Oklahoma State Penitentiary Inmate No. 75926, has filed for a mandamus alleging that his fifteen year sentence in the penitentiary is excessive and this violates his constitutional rights. Petitioner argues that his fifteen year sentence for the crimes of robbery and rape are excessive in that his “crime case partner” only received a ten year sentence for the same crimes of robbery and rape.

We find no merit in the argument of Petitioner. It is a familiar rule of this Court that the question as to whether or not a sentence is excessive and thus, cruel and unjust punishment, cannot be considered on habeas corpus, as it is a question reviewable only on appeal when the sentence imposed is within the limits authorized by statute. Farris v. State, Okl.Cr., 327 P.2d 706. Brown v. State, Okl.Cr., 423 P.2d 743. The same rule would be applicable in the instant case even though Petitioner has filed for a mandamus rather than a writ of habeas corpus.

After having fully considered the petition and the premises therein we find that there is nothing alleged which would justify the grant of any relief. Therefore, the above numbered and styled cause is hereby dismissed. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1969 OK CR 28, 449 P.2d 935, 1969 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/combs-v-state-oklacrimapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack