Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

376 P.2d 634

Lott v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided November 28, 1962

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1962-11-28

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1968

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““All inmates serving their first term with a good conduct record and who have no infraction of the rules and regulations of the penal institution shall be allowed as a deduction from his term of imprisonment the jail term, if any, served prior to being received at the penal institution. Inmates on parole who are returned to the institution as parole violators shall retain the credits earned up to the date of their release on 'parole. Provided, however, that no convict shall be entitled to deduction for good time as herein provided in the event he has been guilty of misconduct or violation of the prison rules and regulations, unless relieved therefrom by the Warden.””

quoted by 6 later decisions, including Jackson v. Page, McNeely v. Page

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1962-11-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NIX, Presiding Judge.

¶1 This is an original proceeding in Ha-beas Corpus filed in this Court by the Petitioner, Johnny Rod Lott, # 66667, an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. He was sentenced to 2 years for the crime of Second Degree Burglary from the District Court of Oklahoma County on March 16, 1962.

¶2 Petitioner seeks release from confinement on the basis of being a first offender, and so alleges in his verified petition. His contention is based on the portion of Title 57 O.S'.A. § 138, which reads as follows:

All inmates serving their first term with a good conduct record and who have no infraction of the rules and regulations of the penal institution shall be allowed as a deduction from his term of imprisonment the jail term, if any, served prior to being received at the penal institution.

¶3 In the Response filed by the Attorney General, with copies of Judgment and Sentence; and Petitioners Prison Record attached, it should be noted that such is not the case in this instance.

¶4 Also, upon checking with the Pardon and Parole Board, it was discovered that petitioner had served two prior terms in Federal Reformatories.

¶5 ' Under the above statute, the Petitioner would not be entitled to credit for time spent in county jail since his criminal record shows these prior convictions.

¶6 For the foregoing reasons, the application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby denied.

BRETT and BUSSEY, JJ., concur.
/376/p2d/634 · .json · Public domain