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. When such a proceeding arises from the revocation of parole or conditional release, the proceeding shall be commenced by filing a verified "application for post- conviction relief" with the clerk of the district court in the county in which the parole or conditional release was revoked. Facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant and the authenticity of all documents and exhibits included in or attached to the application must be sworn to affirmatively as true and correct. The Court of Criminal Appeals may prescribe the form of the application and verification. The clerk shall docket the application upon its receipt and promptly bring it to the attention of the court and deliver a copy to the district attorney. Laws 1970, c. 220, § 2, eff. July 1, 1970.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · 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 2× “See 22 O.S.2011, § 1081. If the results of the forensic DNA testing conducted under the provisions of the Act are favorable to the petitioner, the District Court is authorized to grant the appropriate relief under 22 O.”
Delfrate v. Oklahoma Dep't of Corr., 1999 OK CR 42 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “On April 16, 1999, the Creek County District Court dismissed Petitioner’s application finding that under the Uniform Post -Conviction Act, 22 O.S.1991, § 1081, the county with jurisdiction to hear' such a claim was not Creek County, but the county in which the parole or…”
Moore v. Gibson, 2001 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001).
“1997, §§ 1601-1611, as follows: Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22 § 1081 authorizes the filing of petitions for post-conviction relief, but does not define what constitutes "filing.”
Moore v. Gibson, 250 F.3d 1295 (10th Cir. 2001).
“22, §§ 1080-1089, caused us to certify the following question to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals: “[D]oes the prisoner mailbox rule apply to filings in Oklahoma district courts for post-conviction relief made pursuant to Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 22, § 1081?” The Oklahoma Court…”
In re Habeas Corpus of Sanders, 568 P.2d 331 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “1971, § 1080 and 22 O.S.1971, § 1081. The pertinent part of 22 O.”
State Ex Rel. Coats v. Hunter, 580 P.2d 158 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978).
“Furthermore, we hold that under 22 O.S.1971, § 1081, the District Court of Oklahoma County, has jurisdiction to entertain such an action only over those convicted felons whose judgments and sentences were imposed in this district.”
Heinken v. Higgins, 175 F. App'x 986 (10th Cir. 2006).
“Heinken returned to state district court, filing a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1081 . That court denied relief on January 28, 2005, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed that denial on May 3, 2005.”
Hyslop v. Bridges (E.D. Okla. 2022).
· cites it 6× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1081 (2011) (establishing requirements for a verified application for post-conviction relief); Logan v.”
State Ex. Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Dunlap, 995 P.2d 1148 (Okla. 2000).
“The application failed to comply with 22 O.S.1991 § 1081 because it was not verified by the applicant and it did not contain a sworn statement of facts within the knowledge of the applicant.”
Nordstedt v. Louthan (N.D. Okla. 2023).
· cites it 2× “First, Louthan asserts that “Oklahoma’s Post-Conviction Procedure Act is the only vehicle for challenging a criminal conviction and sentence outside of direct appeals” and contends the § 994 motion should not be considered a “properly filed application for post-conviction…”
Patterson v. Bridges (N.D. Okla. 2025).
· cites it 2× “The state district court dismissed claim forty-three, as asserted in Patterson’s second application for postconviction relief, because the application was not properly verified, as required by Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1081 , and the OCCA affirmed the denial of postconviction…”
McMahon v. State, 747 P.2d 967 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“22 O.S.1981, § 1081. Neither the Court in its order nor appellant cite any case law.”
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.