No. 24-5728

Anthony Raymoné Clark v. Oklahoma

Lower Court: Oklahoma
Docketed: 2024-10-09
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: appeal-process criminal-procedure district-court final-judgment post-conviction procedural-rules
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2024-12-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the trial judge and state's attorney improperly created an impediment to a timely post-conviction application appeal

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED In my case | timely submitted my original post-conviction application and the trial Judge along with the state's attorney unreasonably created an impediment contrary to the procedural rules: RULE 5.2 APPEAL FROM FINAL JUDGEMENT : (A.) Final Judgment on Post-Conviction Application. The appeal to this Court : under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act constitutes an appeal from the issues raised, the record, and findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the District Court in non-capital cases. See Yingst v. State, 480 p.2d 276, 277 (Okla. Cr.1971). To state that the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals had not affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, (See

Docket Entries

2024-12-09
Petition DENIED.
2024-11-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2024.
2024-10-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 8, 2024)

Attorneys

Anthony R. Clark
Anthony Raymoné Clark — Petitioner
Anthony Raymoné Clark — Petitioner