¶0 Syllabus by the Court
1. The criminal code of the state of Oklahoma makes no provision for writ of certiorari.
2. It is the practice of the Court of Criminal Appeals to determine cause by allegations in body of petition and prayer, rather than heading, particularly where petitioner is not trained in law and files his petition without aid of counsel.
3. Where prayer of petition of prisoner was to require removal of detainer or hold order, action was one for mandamus, rather than for writ of certiorari.
4. A sister state may file a valid hold order with the warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary concerning an inmate of such penitentiary at any time.
5. The Court of Criminal Appeals is without authority to order the removal of a hold order placed by a sister state with the warden of the State Penitentiary against an inmate of the Penitentiary who is serving under a valid judgment and sentence.
Original proceeding by T. L. Martin, an inmate of the State Penitentiary, seeking removal of detainer or hold order placed against him by authorities of the State of Texas. Petition dismissed.
T. L. Martin, petitioner, pro se.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
BRETT, Judge.
¶1 This is a petition by T. L. Martin, an inmate of the State Penitentiary, for writ of certiorari, for which there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure in Oklahoma.
¶2 Petitioner admits that he is presently serving a valid judgment and sentence rendered against him in the district court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma on a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary in the second degree, and wherein he was sentenced to serve a term of six years in the penitentiary; and states that he has no complaint relative thereto.
¶3 Petitioner does complain relative to what he denominates "supplemental restraint" by virtue of a detainer or hold order filed by the authorities of Sherman, Texas with the Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, and the prayer of his petition is to require the Warden of the Penitentiary to dismiss the detainer or hold order so placed against him.
¶4 It has been the practice of this Court to determine the nature of a cause by the allegations in the body of the petition and the prayer, rather than the heading, and particularly where the petitioner is not trained in the law, and files without the aid of counsel. Hence, we have treated the prisoner's petition as one for writ of mandamus. Cane v. Berry, Okl.Cr., 356 P.
¶5 This Court is without authority to grant the relief prayed. We know of no such holding to support such a theory. We can think of no better way to destroy comity of enforcement of the law between the states than to so hold. A sister state may file a valid detainer or hold order against one serving a valid sentence in the penitentiary at any time. This we cannot prevent under the law. However, if it were not well founded in the law, the question might be raised at the time extradition is attempted.
¶6 The action is, accordingly, dismissed.
NIX, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.