State ex Rel. Coats v. Hunter

4 Citing cases

  1. Burger v. Scott

    317 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2003)   Cited 403 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the one-year statute of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), applies to § 2241 habeas actions

    As noted by the district court, although Burger filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, rather than a post-conviction application, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has recognized that both of these proceedings are filed pursuant to the Oklahoma Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §§ 1080-1089. See Delfrate v. Okla. Dep't of Corr., 991 P.2d 549, 552 (Okla.Crim.App. 1999); see also Okla. ex rel. Coats v. Hunter, 580 P.2d 158, 159 (Okla.Crim.App. 1978) (noting that the right to writs of habeas corpus in criminal cases are "incorporated into and amplified by" the Act). Burger filed his federal petition on December 13, 2000, fourteen days after the OCCA ruled on his state claim.

  2. Dutton v. City of Midwest

    2015 OK 51 (Okla. 2015)   Cited 28 times
    Discussing distinction between supervisory and superintending jurisdiction

    State v. Powell, 2010 OK 40, ¶ 2, 237 P.3d 779, 780; Okla. Const. Art. 7 § 4. State ex rel. Coats v. Hunter, 1978 OK CR 57, 580 P.2d 158, 159 (referencing the Post-Conviction Relief Act, now codified at 22 O.S.2011 §§ 1080 - 1088). See also Hinkle v. Kenny, 1936 OK 582, 62 P.2d 621 (writ of habeas corpus denied because petitioner had remedy at law in the Criminal Court of Appeals, and the Legislature acting under the authority given by Article 7 had established a Court of Criminal Appeals and gave it exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters.).

  3. Moore v. Gibson

    27 P.3d 483 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001)   Cited 40 times
    In Moore, the OCCA rejected a mailbox rule for pro se prisoners' initial post-conviction filings in the Oklahoma district courts, thus directing the inquiry as to whether a state petition is "properly filed" for purposes of § 2244(d) to an examination of evidence showing that the proper documents were either delivered to or received by the courts, rather than to or by prison officials.

    This Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases in Oklahoma. Okla. Const. art. 7, § 4; s ee Banks v. State, 1998 OK CR 5, 953 P.2d 344, 346; s ee also State ex rel. Henry v. Mahler, 1990 OK 3, 786 P.2d 82, 85. Actions brought pursuant to the Oklahoma Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act are criminal actions. State ex rel. Coats v. Hunter,1978 OK CR 57, 580 P.2d 158, 159. ¶ 8 We answer the question posed by first defining the meaning of the term "filing" found in § 1081.

  4. State v. Macy

    13 P.3d 503 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    Code of Judicial Conduct to permit television cameras to be used in the courtroom for the purpose of broadcast coverage of preliminary hearing in criminal case); State ex rel. Wideman v. Beekman, 1992 OK CR 64, 839 P.2d 661 (writ of mandamus granted directing District Judge to comply with discovery provisions of Allen v. District Court and order the defense counsel to disclose to the State the relevant oral, written, or recorded statement, or summaries of same, of witnesses whom the defense intends to call at trial); Moss [District Attorney] v. District Court of Tulsa County, 1988 OK CR 112, 756 P.2d 1250 (writ issued to District Judge prohibiting him from issuing order to conduct a pretrial line-up in a case that was still pending before preliminary hearing magistrate); State ex rel. Stout v. Craytor, 1988 OK CR 79, 753 P.2d 1365 (writ granted where trial court attempted without authority to order District Attorney to amend homicide information to comply with withdrawn plea bargain); State ex rel. Coats v. Hunter, 1978 OK CR 57, 580 P.2d 158 (writ granted prohibiting trial court from treating application for post-conviction relief as a class action; overruling respondent's claim that petitioner's remedy should be by appeal and not by extraordinary writ); State ex rel. Powell v. Shi, 1977 OK CR 213, 566 P.2d 1170, (writ issued prohibiting Judge from accepting guilty pleas to any lesser included offenses without the consent of the District Attorney); State ex rel. Wise v. Clanton, 1977 OK CR 45, 560 P.2d 598, (writ granted prohibiting magistrate from ordering District Attorney to answer incompetent question calling for hearsay. Respondent urged that Petitioner's remedy was appeal. The Court found that appeal would not be an adequate, timely remedy because similar cases were pending, and the problem would likely recur unless Prohibition were granted. "[I]t appears that this same situation will arise in several other pending and like cases in the 12th Judicial District. . . . We do not feel that the remedy of appeal in the in