Matter of Sanders

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Matter of Sanders

1981 OK CR 130, 635 P.2d 1023, 1981 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 274

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 26, 1981

DocketNo. H-81-417

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1981 OK CR 130 (Matter of Sanders) 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

Matter of Sanders, 1981 OK CR 130, 635 P.2d 1023, 1981 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 274 (Okla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The petitioner contends that Title 57 O.S. Supp.1981, § 138, as amended in 1976 oper[1024]*1024ates as an ex post facto law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Court has recently addressed this issue in State v. Wood, 624 P.2d 555 (Okl.Cr.1981). In Wood we held that the statutory credits for good conduct under the pre-1976 statute were not substantively changed under the 1976 amended statute. The amended statute merely operates to change the procedural method by which the Department of Corrections calculates a prisoner’s release date. “The only difference is that under the amended statute the work credits are calculated monthly and then only after they are earned.”

We hold that State v. Wood, supra, is dispositive of this case. We also find that our disposition of this issue comports with the recent Supreme Court decision in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). In Weaver the Supreme Court held that a revision in a Florida statute, reducing the amount of “gain time” for good conduct, constituted an ex post facto law, as applied to that petitioner. The Supreme Court further asserted that “no ex post facto violation occurs if the change effected is merely procedural, and does not increase the punishment. . .” 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. at 964, n.12.

The petitioner has not sufficiently shown this Court that his term of imprisonment has been increased as a result of the 1976 amendment. Additionally, he has not affirmatively demonstrated that he is entitled to immediate release. Therefore, we find that the district court judge did not err in denying the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be, and hereby is, DENIED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS and the seal of this Court this 26th day of October, 1981.

TOM BRETT, P. J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.

TOM R. CORNISH, J.

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

ORDER DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The petitioner contends that Title 57 O.S. Supp.1981, § 138, as amended in 1976 oper[1024]*1024ates as an ex post facto law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Court has recently addressed this issue in State v. Wood, 624 P.2d 555 (Okl.Cr.1981). In Wood we held that the statutory credits for good conduct under the pre-1976 statute were not substantively changed under the 1976 amended statute. The amended statute merely operates to change the procedural method by which the Department of Corrections calculates a prisoner’s release date. “The only difference is that under the amended statute the work credits are calculated monthly and then only after they are earned.”

We hold that State v. Wood, supra, is dispositive of this case. We also find that our disposition of this issue comports with the recent Supreme Court decision in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). In Weaver the Supreme Court held that a revision in a Florida statute, reducing the amount of “gain time” for good conduct, constituted an ex post facto law, as applied to that petitioner. The Supreme Court further asserted that “no ex post facto violation occurs if the change effected is merely procedural, and does not increase the punishment. . .” 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. at 964, n.12.

The petitioner has not sufficiently shown this Court that his term of imprisonment has been increased as a result of the 1976 amendment. Additionally, he has not affirmatively demonstrated that he is entitled to immediate release. Therefore, we find that the district court judge did not err in denying the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be, and hereby is, DENIED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS and the seal of this Court this 26th day of October, 1981.

TOM BRETT, P. J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.

TOM R. CORNISH, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1981 OK CR 130, 635 P.2d 1023, 1981 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-sanders-oklacrimapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack