Court Opinion

ID: 5149208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 01:48:56.809123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:57.272917
License: Public Domain

[1] Lewis Carson, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, has filed an instrument with this Court entitled "Motion to Dismiss or to Amend," which we will treat as an appeal from denial of post conviction relief. From the record it appears that the Petitioner is currently incarcerated under a judgment and sentence entered in Pittsburg County Case No. F-71-36 for the offense of Escape.
[2] The trial court entered detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which amply support his findings that post conviction relief should not be granted.
[3] We have examined the Order Denying Application for Post-Conviction Relief and find that the trial judge correctly applied conclusions of law, and we hereby commend Judge Ervin for the diligent manner in which he conducted the post conviction proceedings and adopt his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
[4] Although the order denying post conviction relief was issued on the 14th day of April, 1971, and the Petitioner is long out of time in filing an appeal from denial of post conviction relief (which should have been filed on or before the 14th day of May, 1971), since Petitioner entitled his instrument "Motion to Dismiss or to Amend," and since he raised the same issues as were raised in his application for post conviction relief in the trial court, we append hereto a copy of the order of Judge Ervin, which is incorporated by reference.
[5] The trial court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and denial of post conviction relief are affirmed.
[6] BRETT and NIX, JJ., concur.
 APPENDIX
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR PITTSBURG COUNTY, STATE OF
 OKLAHOMA
 LEWIS LEE CARSON #80192 __________________ Petitioner
 vs. C-71-149
 THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA and
 RAY H. PAGE, WARDEN ____________________ Respondents
 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
 NOW on this 14th day of April, 1971, the same being a judicial
day of said Court, this cause comes on for summary hearing on the
application for post-conviction relief of Lewis Lee Carson #80192
wherein he alleges that he is presently incarcerated in the
Oklahoma State Penitentiary. That he was previously convicted for
the offense of Escape in the District Court of Pittsburg County
in Case No. F-71-36, and sentenced to two years in the custody of
the Department of Corrections. That said sentence was rendered
upon his plea of guilty.
 Further, petitioner alleges two grounds for relief.
 1. That he was not taken before a magistrate within
 twenty-four hours after his arrest.
 2. That he was not advised by the arresting officers
 of his right to remain silent or that anything he
 might say
 *Page 381 
 would be used against him in a Court of
 law.
 This Court finds after reviewing the pleadings and the record
and being fully advised in the premises that:
 (1) The state filed an information in Case No.
 F-70-136 on May 12, 1970, charging the offense of
 Escape alleged to have occurred on the same day.
 (2) The petitioner made his initial appearance before
 Special Judge Basil Null of the District Court,
 Pittsburg County, on May 13, 1970, at which time
 the Court appointed competent counsel to
 represent him in this matter.
 (3) That on July 15, 1970, petitioner entered his
 plea of guilty to the District Court of Pittsburg
 County.
 (4) That on July 15, 1970, there was filed in this
 case a document denominated, "Summary of Facts,"
 which was executed by petitioner and shows that
 after full deliberation with his appointed
 counsel he entered his plea of guilty to the
 offense charged of his own free will and for the
 sole reason that he did do the acts as alleged in
 the information.
The Court concludes:
 First:
 That ground No. 1 as set forth by petitioner
 stating that he was not taken before a Judge within
 twenty-four hours, is without merit for the reason
 that the laws of the State of Oklahoma do not
 require the taking of a defendant before a
 magistrate within a specified number of hours, but
 rather that he be taken before a magistrate after
 arrest without undue delay; and that the petitioner
 was arraigned before the committing magistrate on
 the day following the offense, and that said
 arraignment was done within a reasonable time and
 without undue delay.
 Second:
 That ground No. 2 set forth by petitioner that he
 was not advised of his rights against
 self-incrimination is without merit in that nothing
 appears from the record that a confession was ever
 taken from petitioner or introduced into Court in
 these proceedings, but that the finding of guilt
 was made upon his plea of guilty entered in open
 Court of his own free will and for the sole reason
 that he did do the acts alleged as reflected by the
 Summary of Facts executed by him after full
 deliberation with his attorney.
 It is therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court
that the application of petitioner be and is hereby denied.
 WILLIAM, J. ERVIN, Associate District Judge.