Okla. Stat. » Title 57 — PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138 (2026)

See the following versions:

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

OS 57-138v1 (HB 3936, Laws 2024, c. 59, § 38) OS 57-138v2 (SB 690, Laws 2025, c. 132, § 1)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 129 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: Cardoso v. Calbone, 490 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cardoso v. Calbone, 490 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 5× “Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, § 138 (A). While at level four, Mr.”
Ekstrand v. State, 791 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). · cites it 15× “1988, § 138 is an ex post facto law as applied to him in that it computes earned time credits in such a way as to allow him fewer credits than he was given under the previous statute, thereby lengthening his sentence. On December 20, 1989, this Court directed a response from the…”
Williams v. State, 461 P.2d 997 (Okla. Crim. App. 1969). · cites it 18× “The defendant contends that the giving of an instruction under the authority of 57 O.S.Supp. 1968 § 138, is a violation of his constitutional rights and that the statute is unconstitutional.”
Luna-gonzales v. State, 2019 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “2d 74, Appellant argues that this Court interpreted similar language within 57 O.S.Supp.1980, § 138(C) as meaning a defendant would receive credit for the time he served in jail prior to trial.”
Luna-gonzales v. State, 442 P.3d 171 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “2d 74 , Appellant argues that this Court interpreted similar language within 57 O.S.Supp.1980, § 138(C) as meaning a defendant would receive credit for the time he served in jail prior to trial.”
Wilson v. Jones, 430 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138 (D)(2). Mr. Wilson was required to spend thirty days at level one.”
Stouffer v. Workman, 348 F. App'x 401 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 10× “Each earned credit is equivalent to one (1) day of incarceration .”
Warnick v. Booher, 425 F.3d 842 (10th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138 (A). The number of credits that an inmate earns each month is determined by his “class level” — for example, at class-level one, the inmate earns no credits; at level two, 22 credits; at level three, 33 credits; and at level four, 44 credits.”
Spradling v. Maynard, 527 F. Supp. 398 (W.D. Okla. 1981). · cites it 6× “219 § 1, now 57 O.S.Supp.1980, § 138, became effective September 8, 1976.”
Canady v. Reynolds, 880 P.2d 391 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “See 57 O.S.Supp.1993, § 138 (allowing credits to be subtracted from credits previously earned upon recommendation of a prison’s disciplinary committee; requiring due process protections; subject to approval of the warden or superintendent of the institution; and ordering…”
State Ex Rel. Griffin v. Litscher, 2003 WI App 60 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “Griffin asserts that the trial court erred when it concluded that the provisions of Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 57, § 138 (West 2001) did not entitle him to credit against his Wisconsin prison sentence.”
Warnick v. Booher, 2006 OK CR 41 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “2d 942 , this Court held that a prisoner’s sentence is not satisfied until he serves the entire sentence and that is accomplished “when a prisoner has served a sufficient number of days to complete his sentence, including good time credit computed under Title 57 O.S. § 138, he…”
Show all 129 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138(A) — 5 cases
Warnick v. Booher, 2006 OK CR 41 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “2d 942 , this Court held that a prisoner’s sentence is not satisfied until he serves the entire sentence and that is accomplished “when a prisoner has served a sufficient number of days to complete his sentence, including good time credit computed under Title 57 O.S. § 138, he…”
Titsworth v. Mullin, 415 F. App'x 50 (10th Cir. 2011).
Nida v. Lawson (W.D. Okla. 2021).
Randall Edward Fletcher v. Rick Whitten, Et Al. (W.D. Okla. 2025).
Sanders v. Saffle (10th Cir. 2000).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138(A)(D) — 2 cases
Lindsey v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Corr., 593 P.2d 1088 (Okla. 1979).
Lindsey v. State ex rel. Dep't of Corr., 593 P.2d 1088 (Okla. 1979).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138(C) — 4 cases
Luna-gonzales v. State, 2019 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). “2d 74, Appellant argues that this Court interpreted similar language within 57 O.S.Supp.1980, § 138(C) as meaning a defendant would receive credit for the time he served in jail prior to trial.”
Luna-gonzales v. State, 442 P.3d 171 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). “2d 74 , Appellant argues that this Court interpreted similar language within 57 O.S.Supp.1980, § 138(C) as meaning a defendant would receive credit for the time he served in jail prior to trial.”
Warnick v. Booher, 2006 OK CR 41 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “2d 942 , this Court held that a prisoner’s sentence is not satisfied until he serves the entire sentence and that is accomplished “when a prisoner has served a sufficient number of days to complete his sentence, including good time credit computed under Title 57 O.S. § 138, he…”
Loyd v. State, 624 P.2d 74 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138(C)(3) — 1 case
Ekstrand v. State, 791 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “1988, § 138 is an ex post facto law as applied to him in that it computes earned time credits in such a way as to allow him fewer credits than he was given under the previous statute, thereby lengthening his sentence. On December 20, 1989, this Court directed a response from the…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138(D) — 1 case
Verduzco v. State, 2009 OK CR 24 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138(D)(2)(a) — 1 case
Titsworth v. Mullin, 415 F. App'x 50 (10th Cir. 2011).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138(E) — 3 cases
Canady v. Reynolds, 880 P.2d 391 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “See 57 O.S.Supp.1993, § 138 (allowing credits to be subtracted from credits previously earned upon recommendation of a prison’s disciplinary committee; requiring due process protections; subject to approval of the warden or superintendent of the institution; and ordering…”
Titsworth v. Mullin, 415 F. App'x 50 (10th Cir. 2011).
Nida v. Lawson (W.D. Okla. 2021).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138(F) — 1 case
Ekstrand v. State, 791 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “1988, § 138 is an ex post facto law as applied to him in that it computes earned time credits in such a way as to allow him fewer credits than he was given under the previous statute, thereby lengthening his sentence. On December 20, 1989, this Court directed a response from the…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138(G) — 2 cases
Luna-gonzales v. State, 2019 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). “2d 74, Appellant argues that this Court interpreted similar language within 57 O.S.Supp.1980, § 138(C) as meaning a defendant would receive credit for the time he served in jail prior to trial.”
Luna-gonzales v. State, 442 P.3d 171 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). “2d 74 , Appellant argues that this Court interpreted similar language within 57 O.S.Supp.1980, § 138(C) as meaning a defendant would receive credit for the time he served in jail prior to trial.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138(a) — 1 case
Worthen v. Franklin, 186 F. App'x 835 (10th Cir. 2006).
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.