conviction or sentence. Any person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime and who claims: 1. That the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of this state; 2. That the court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence; 3. That the sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by law; 4. That there exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice; 5. That the sentence has expired, the suspended sentence, probation, parole, or conditional release unlawfully revoked, or he or she is otherwise unlawfully held in custody or other restraint; or 6. That the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground of alleged error heretofore available under any common law, statutory or other writ, motion, petition, proceeding or remedy, may institute a proceeding under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act in the court in which the judgment and sentence on conviction was imposed to secure the appropriate relief. Excluding a timely appeal, the Post-Conviction Procedure Act encompasses and replaces all common law and statutory methods of challenging a conviction or sentence including, but not limited to, writs of habeas corpus. Added by Laws 1970, c. 220, § 1, eff. July 1, 1970. Amended by Laws 2022, c. 144, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2022.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
142
cases (
23 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case:
Flowers v. State, 2016 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
Flowers v. State, 2016 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “¶6 The Dissent in this case maintains the Postconviction DNA Act expands the list of six grounds for relief found in 22 O.S.2011, § 1080, of the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act stating: "The Legislature added an additional ground for relief when it enacted the…”
Fontenot v. Crow, 4 F.4th 982 (10th Cir. 2021).
“62 Anticipatory Procedural Bar Two state procedural bars are at play: Oklahoma’s Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, §§ 1080–89, and its state-law doctrine of laches.”
Romano v. State, 917 P.2d 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 8× “22 O.S.1991, § 1080, et seq. Post-conviction relief may be based on the discovery of "material facts, not previously presented and heard, that require vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.”
Nicholson v. Stitt, 2022 OK 35 (Okla. 2022).
· cites it 3× “See 22 O.S.2011 § 1080 Id. § 1080(b). Such "[a] proceeding is commenced by filing a verified 'application for post-conviction relief' with the clerk of the court imposing judgment if an appeal is not pending.”
Johnson v. State, 823 P.2d 370 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “OPINION LANE, Presiding Judge: The present case arises from the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s second Application for Post-Conviction relief, brought pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, § 1080 et seq., in the District Court of Oklahoma County.”
Berget v. State, 907 P.2d 1078 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Our consideration of these claims will be strictly limited by the statutory rules which establish our authority in post-conviction matters, 22 O.”
Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
“On July 10, 1997, the District Court denied Petitioner's application. On October 2, 1997, this Court denied his appeal of the District Court's ruling in Robert A.”
Pavatt v. Royal, 894 F.3d 1115 (10th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “The OCCA concluded that these claims were procedurally barred under the provisions of the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §§ 1080 et seq. In reaching this conclusion, the OCCA noted that, under that Act, “[c]laims which could have been raised on…”
Edwin Edgar Jones v. Norman Hess & the State of Oklahoma, 681 F.2d 688 (10th Cir. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Although Jones had generally alleged in the state proceedings bias and prejudice by the state trial judge, the magistrate’s recommended findings, adopted by the federal district court, concluded that Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 had never been brought to the attention of the…”
Dutton v. City of Midwest City, 2015 OK 51 (Okla. 2015).
“2011 § 1080, states that: Any person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime and who claims: (a) that the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of this state; (b) that the court was without…”
Hatch v. State, 924 P.2d 284 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The new provision provides for filing of an original application for post-conviction relief directly with this Court, instead of the District Court where the case was tried.”
Hale v. State, 807 P.2d 264 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “It is not the purpose of the PostConviction Procedure Act, 22 O.S.1981, § 1080, et seq., to provide a "second appeal under the mask of post-conviction application.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1080(a) — 3 cases
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1080(b) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1080(c) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1080(d) — 6 cases
Romano v. State, 917 P.2d 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
“22 O.S.1991, § 1080, et seq. Post-conviction relief may be based on the discovery of "material facts, not previously presented and heard, that require vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1080(e) — 4 cases
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.