Opinion

Hobbs v. State

  • 417 P.2d 934
  • 1966 OK CR 112
  • 1966 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 290
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Filed
Aug 31, 1966
Status
Published
Author
Nix
On the bench
Nix, Bussey, Brett
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 89.0%

The opinion

NIX, Judge:

This is an original proceedings filed by the petitioner, Howard Eugene Hobbs, seeking a Writ of Mandamus from this Court directing the District Court of Comanche 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 Terre Haute, Indiana, pursuant to a violation of the United States Code, and sentenced at Joplin, Mo. on March 29, 1966 to a term of Two Years.

The principle of law involved in this case has received the consideration of this Court a number of times.

See Hurst v. Pitman, 90 Okl.Cr. 329 , 213 P.2d 877 ; Bonsor v. District Court of Cimarron 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 , and was clearly set forth in the case of Application of Melton, Okl.Cr., 342 P.2d 571 , as follows:

“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.”

And, further:

“The state is not required to assume the burden of cost, incident to affording a speedy trial, i. e., in returning an accused to the state, who, on his own volition, placed himself beyond the jurisdiction of the state and in the custody of the Federal Government.”

In the case of Head v. State, Okl.Cr., 388 P.2d 327 ; and in the recent decision of Angel v. State, Okl.Cr., 397 P.2d 518 , this court stated:

“Since [prisoner] is incarcerated in a penal institution outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals, he is

*936

not entitled to relief by Writ of Mandamus.”

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

BUSSEY, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.