Fryar v. State

1968 OK CR 67, 440 P.2d 204, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 305
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedApril 24, 1968
DocketNo. A-14657
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1968 OK CR 67 (Fryar 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
Fryar v. State, 1968 OK CR 67, 440 P.2d 204, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 305 (Okla. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

NIX, Presiding Judge:

This is an original proceeding filed by the petitioner, Gary Wendell Fryar, seeking a writ of mandamus from this Court directing the District Court of Pontotoc County to grant him a speedy trial or dismiss the charges pending there against him. Petitioner is presently confined in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.

The principle of law involved in this case has received the consideration of this Court on numerous occasions, most recently in Hobbs v. State, Okl.Cr., 417 P.2d 934:

“Where an accused is incarcerated in a Federal Penitentiary, such incarceration is good cause for delay in bringing him to trial, even where the state authorities fail to request his delivery to the state court for trial."
“The state is not required to assume the burden of cost, incident to affording a speedy trial in returning an accused to the state, who, on his own volition, placed [205]*205himself beyond the jurisdiction of the state and in the custody of the Federal Government.”
“Since prisoner is incarcerated in a penal institution outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals, he is not entitled to relief by Writ of Mandamus.”

See, also, Hurst v. Pitman, 90 Okl.Cr. 329, 213 P.2d 877; Bonsor v. District Court of Cimmarron County, Okl.Cr., 303 P.2d 471; White v. Brown, Okl.Cr., 349 P.2d 509; Auten v. State, Okl.Cr., 377 P.2d 61; and Dreadfulwater v. State, Okl.Cr., 415 P.2d 493; Application of Melton, Okl.Cr., 342 P.2d 571; Head v. State, Okl.Cr., 388 P.2d 327; and in another recent decision of Angel v. State, Okl.Cr., 397 P.2d 518.

Under the conditions herewith presented, the petition for writ of mandamus wholly fails to state grounds for relief, and is accordingly denied.

BUSSEY and BRETT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Fryar v. State
1969 OK CR 193 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1969)
Naugle v. Freeman
1969 OK CR 71 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1968 OK CR 67, 440 P.2d 204, 1968 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fryar-v-state-oklacrimapp-1968.