institution - Concurrent sentences - Credit for good conduct. When any person is convicted of two (2) or more crimes in the same proceeding or court or in different proceedings or courts, and
the judgment and sentence for each conviction arrives at a state penal institution on different dates, the sentence which is first received at the institution shall commence and be followed by those sentences which are subsequently received at the institution, in the order in which they are received by the institution, regardless of the order in which the judgments and sentences were rendered by the respective courts, unless a judgment and sentence provides that it is to run concurrently with another judgment and sentence. This section shall not affect the credits allowed under Section 138 of Title 57. Laws 1979, c. 135, § 1, emerg. eff. May 3, 1979; Laws 1980, c. 222, § 1, emerg. eff. May 30, 1980.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 2002–2016 · leading case:
Warnick v. Booher, 425 F.3d 842 (10th Cir. 2005).
Warnick v. Booher, 425 F.3d 842 (10th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 61.1 . 1 In Ex parte Grimes, 92 Okla.”
Morales, Jr. v. Jones, 417 F. App'x 746 (10th Cir. 2011).
“Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 61.1 directs: When any person is convicted of two or more crimes in the same proceeding or court or in different proceedings or courts, and the judgment and sentence for each conviction arrives at a state penal institution on different dates, the…”
Hulett Foster v. Glynn Booher, Warden, 296 F.3d 947 (10th Cir. 2002).
“…at the correctional institution where the prisoner is housed, rather than the dates when the sentences are imposed. Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 61.1 .”
Moss v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 2016 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
“21 O.S.2011, § 61.1. The response noted that because the Tulsa County sentence did not exist at the time Moss was sentenced in Ottawa County, the District Court of Ottawa County could not order Mosses sentence in Ottawa County Case No.”
Warnick v. Booher, 2006 OK CR 41 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
“21 O.S.2001, § 61.1. This provision shall not affect the credits allowed under Section 138 of Title 57.”
Bowie v. Franklin, 502 F. App'x 740 (10th Cir. 2012).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 61.1 . The district court did not address this argument in its order adopting the report and recommendation.”
Harmon v. Booher, 271 F. App'x 704 (10th Cir. 2008).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 61.1 . Harmon’s attempted larceny and escape sentences were imposed consecutively to all other sentences in effect, and the revocation orders for each sentence did not mention concurrent service.”
Moss v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corr., 2016 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “21 O.S.2011, § 61.1. The response noted that because the Tulsa County sentence did not exist at the time Moss was sentenced in Ottawa County, the District Court of Ottawa County could not order Moss's sentence in Ottawa County Case No.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.