parole violation in Oklahoma

1999Thus, McMahon did not resolve the issue. ¶ 15 Finally, in Twyman, 1992 OK CR 53 , 837 P.2d 480 , the Court addressed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release from an order of the Governor revoking his parole.

1999Thus, McMahon did not resolve the issue. ¶ 15 Finally, in Twyman, 1992 OK CR 53 , 837 P.2d 480 , the Court addressed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release from an order of the Governor revoking his parole.

1994That court based its decision on its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, holding that to give the jury the information on when one would be eligible for a parole hearing satisfies the requirement that “the jury have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine.” State v. Henderson, 109 N.M. 655, 658 , 789 P.2d 603, 606 (1990) (quoting California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1003 , 103 S.Ct. 3446, 3454-55 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)).

1994That court based its decision on its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, holding that to give the jury the information on when one would be eligible for a parole hearing satisfies the requirement that “the jury have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine.” State v. Henderson, 109 N.M. 655, 658 , 789 P.2d 603, 606 (1990) (quoting California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1003 , 103 S.Ct. 3446, 3454-55 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)).

1989Given these factors, due process would seem to require that some minimal inquiry be conducted at or reasonably near the place of the alleged parole violation or arrest and as promptly as convenient after arrest while information is fresh and sources are available. 408 U.S. at 485 , 92 S.Ct. at 2602 .

1989Given these factors, due process would seem to require that some minimal inquiry be conducted at or reasonably near the place of the alleged parole violation or arrest and as promptly as convenient after arrest while information is fresh and sources are available. 408 U.S. at 485 , 92 S.Ct. at 2602 .

1960In Hathcox v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 110 , 230 P.2d 927, 929 , this court said, in a similar situation: “Counsel for a defendant must not only object to alleged improper statements of the county attorney in his argument to the jury, but he must go further and move the court to exclude such remarks from the jury and instruct them not to consider them for any purpose, unless the remarks were of such a character that the error would not be cured by a withdrawal of the remarks.

1960In Hathcox v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 110 , 230 P.2d 927, 929 , this court said, in a similar situation: “Counsel for a defendant must not only object to alleged improper statements of the county attorney in his argument to the jury, but he must go further and move the court to exclude such remarks from the jury and instruct them not to consider them for any purpose, unless the remarks were of such a character that the error would not be cured by a withdrawal of the remarks.

1958Westbrook v. O'Neill, 378 Ill. 324 , 38 N.E.2d 174 . [1] We conclude that the papers presented to the Governor of Oklahoma herein were sufficient to justify him in issuing the Governor's warrant, and for the delivery of petitioner to agent Travers for return to California.

1958Westbrook v. O'Neill, 378 Ill. 324 , 38 N.E.2d 174 . [1] We conclude that the papers presented to the Governor of Oklahoma herein were sufficient to justify him in issuing the Governor's warrant, and for the delivery of petitioner to agent Travers for return to California.

1958Admittedly, the extradition papers are in proper form, that is, he is substantially charged with having violated his parole in California, and it is well established that a parole violation is an extraditable offense within the meaning of the statute, Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A., N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal. App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Admittedly, the extradition papers are in proper form, that is, he is substantially charged with having violated his parole in California, and it is well established that a parole violation is an extraditable offense within the meaning of the statute, Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A., N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal. App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal.App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Admittedly, the extradition papers are in proper form, that is, he is substantially charged with having violated his parole in California, and it is well established that a parole violation is an extraditable offense within the meaning of the statute, Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A., N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal. App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Admittedly, the extradition papers are in proper form, that is, he is substantially charged with having violated his parole in California, and it is well established that a parole violation is an extraditable offense within the meaning of the statute, Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A., N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal. App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Admittedly, the extradition papers are in proper form, that is, he is substantially charged with having violated his parole in California, and it is well established that a parole violation is an extraditable offense within the meaning of the statute, Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A., N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal. App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal.App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Admittedly, the extradition papers are in proper form, that is, he is substantially charged with having violated his parole in California, and it is well established that a parole violation is an extraditable offense within the meaning of the statute, Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A., N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal. App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal.App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Admittedly, the extradition papers are in proper form, that is, he is substantially charged with having violated his parole in California, and it is well established that a parole violation is an extraditable offense within the meaning of the statute, Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A., N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal. App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal.App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Admittedly, the extradition papers are in proper form, that is, he is substantially charged with having violated his parole in California, and it is well established that a parole violation is an extraditable offense within the meaning of the statute, Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A., N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal. App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal.App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1958Admittedly, the extradition papers are in proper form, that is, he is substantially charged with having violated his parole in California, and it is well established that a parole violation is an extraditable offense within the meaning of the statute, Reed v. Colpoys, 69 App. D.C. 163 , 99 F.2d 396 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 598 , 59 S.Ct. 97 , 83 L.Ed. 379 ; Ex parte Williams, 10 Okl.Cr. 344 , 136 P. 597 , 51 L.R.A., N.S., 668; Ex parte McBride, 101 Cal. App. 251 , 281 P. 651 ; People ex rel.

1928A. (N.S.) 110, it is said: “When a convict has been released upon a parole, his rearrest and return to custody by an executive order revoking the parole is not in violation of the constitutional guaranty ‘that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law’ or ‘that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation,’ since, being a convict at large by executive clemency, which he has accepted on conditions included therein, upon the violation of any of such conditions he is merely a.n escaped convict, and not entitled to invoke such constitu

1928Cr. 517 , 148 P. 825 , L.

1915Cr. 350 , 106 Pac. 549, it is said: “When a convict has been released upon a parole, his real rest and return to custody by an executive order revoking the parole is not in violation of the constitutional guaranty ‘that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law,’ or ‘that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation,’ since being a convict at large by executive clemency, which he has accepted on conditions included therein, upon the violation of any of such conditions he is merely an escaped convict, and not entitled to invoke such

1915Cr. 350 , 106 Pac. 549, it is said: “When a convict has been released upon a parole, his real rest and return to custody by an executive order revoking the parole is not in violation of the constitutional guaranty ‘that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law,’ or ‘that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation,’ since being a convict at large by executive clemency, which he has accepted on conditions included therein, upon the violation of any of such conditions he is merely an escaped convict, and not entitled to invoke such