Gill v. Raines

1963 OK CR 17, 378 P.2d 778, 1963 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 111
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 6, 1963
DocketNo. A-13339
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1963 OK CR 17 (Gill v. Raines) 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
Gill v. Raines, 1963 OK CR 17, 378 P.2d 778, 1963 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 111 (Okla. Ct. App. 1963).

Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge.

The petitioner, Oscar Gill, seeks by writ of habeas corpus to secure the dismissal of a certain hold order, or detainer, placed against him by the District Attorney of De-Queen, Arkansas with the Warden of the State Penitentiary.

(1)It appears that the petitioner was charged in the district court of Sequoyah County with robbery with firearms, and on a plea of guilty was, at the November, 1960 term of said court sentenced to five years in the State Penitentiary. The petitioner makes no allegation that he is being improperly or illegally held at this time, under these proceedings.

He states that a detainer or hold order has been placed against him with the Warden of the State Penitentiary by the State of Arkansas, and prays that this de-tainer or hold order be removed and that he be relieved of “the prejudicial effects of the unfounded detainer.”

The petition herein, while labelled petition for writ of habeas corpus, is in the nature of a petition for writ of mandamus. Ex parte Cameron, 91 Okl.Cr. 317, 218 P.2d 654.

(2) The Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma has no jurisdiction over the authorities of the State of Arkansas, or authority to order the dismissal of the retainer or hold order' filed against this petitioner by the State of Arkansas. Langham v. Cochran, Okl.Cr., 357 P.2d 583.

The validity of the judgment and sentence under which this petitioner is presently held is not involved, and it is evident that there is no legal duty imposed on the Court of Criminal Appeals to entertain this proceeding, and upon that ground, the application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

BUSSEY, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.

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

Related

Woolen v. Coffman
1984 OK CR 53 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1984)
Trotter v. Page
1966 OK CR 16 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1963 OK CR 17, 378 P.2d 778, 1963 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-v-raines-oklacrimapp-1963.