No. 24-5447

Wilbert Lee Nubine v. Oklahoma

Lower Court: Oklahoma
Docketed: 2024-09-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: constitutional-law criminal-procedure due-process ex-post-facto parole-hearing statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference: 2024-11-01
Question Presented (from Petition)

(1) Whether a public interest is at stake with Petitioner's Ex Post Facto Clause violation issue of Oklahoma by Repeal law forbid female and male prisoners with violent crime convictions to have their Oklahoma One (1) stage parole Review hearing, because their law abolishes the 1 stage parole review system. As well as, forbid by law violent convicted crimes who came in on or after July 1, 1998 to appear duly at the first stage hearing of the two-stage parole hearing process in conflict with well establish United States Supreme Court law in Greenholtz v. Nebraska venal and Correctional Complex. 442 U.S. 1 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2108, 60 L.Ed. 2d 668 M.R. v. Moore. 610 P.2d 811,814 and Ex Parte Custer 200 P.2d 781 their action should be declared Unconstitutional.

(2) Whether a public interest is at stake, by Petitioner showing the mandated statutory law of the forgotten man act 57 O.S. § 332.7 (1971) and The Oklahoma one stage parole viewing system survives the Repeal Amended legislative law of 57 O.S. § 332.7 (1998) and the two-stage parole hearing process, which has caused an Ex Post Facto Clause violation under Article 2. O.S. §15 of Oklahoma Constitution and Article 1§10 of The United States Constitution construed under Garner v. Jones. 529 U.S. 244, 120 S.Ct 1362, 146 L.Ed. 2d 236. Durant v. United States. 410 F.2d 689 Kelly v. The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board 637 P 2d 858 MR. y. Moore. 610 P 2d 811, 814.

(3) Whether a public interest is at stake by petitioner showing that the District Court of Oklahoma county abuse its discretion of not providing a corrective process for petitioner post-conviction without given a requested fact finding and conclusion of the law based on the merits of the petitioner's Ex Post Facto violation as construed in Richardson v. Miller. 716 F. Supp. 1246, Hammon v. State t 504 P.3d 486 Stevens v. State. 232 P.2d 949, 959 and Wilson v. State. 552 P.2d 1402.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the retroactive application of Oklahoma's two-stage parole hearing process violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution

Docket Entries

2024-11-04
Petition DENIED.
2024-10-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2024.
2024-05-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 4, 2024)

Attorneys

Wilbert L. Nubine
Wilbert Lee Nubine — Petitioner