Rule 10.6 Requirements for Particular Writs A. Writ of Prohibition. Petitioner has the burden of establishing (1) a court, officer or person has or is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of said power is unauthorized by law; and (3) the exercise of said power will result in injury for which there is no other adequate remedy. See Maynard v. Layden, 830 P.2d 581 , 583 (Okl.Cr.1992). The adequacy of a remedy is to be determined upon the facts of each particular case. See State ex rel. Wise v. Clanton, 560 P.2d 588 , 591 (Okla.Cr.1977).B. Writ of Mandamus. Petitioner has the burden of establishing (1) he has a clear legal right to the relief sought; (2) the respondent's refusal to perform a plain legal duty not involving the exercise of discretion; and (3) the adequacy of mandamus and the inadequacy of other relief. See Woolen v. Coffman, 676 P.2d 1375 , 1377 (Okl.Cr.1984). Mandamus is also appropriate to ensure procedural due process requirements are followed in administrative proceedings. See Waldon v. Evans, 861 P.2d 311 , 313 (Okl.Cr.1993). Provided however, in matters involving disqualification of judges in criminal cases, if a hearing before the second judge results in an order adverse to the movant, he/she shall have not more than five (5) days from the date of the order to institute a proceeding in the Court for writ of mandamus. See Rule 15, Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma, Title 22, Ch. 18. App. (2003)C. Writ of Habeas Corpus.

1. (1) Petitioner has the burden of establishing confinement is unlawful. See Phillips v. Page, 451 P.2d 23 , 24 (Okl.Cr.1969); Shelton v. State, 381 P.2d 324 (Okl.Cr.1963). Petitioner shall attach a certified copy of both the Judgment and Sentence and the District Court order denying relief with his petition to meet his burden of proof. In the absence of an extreme emergency, this Court will not entertain an original application for a writ of habeas corpus where such application has not been presented to and refused by the District Court of the county where petitioner is restrained. In re Dykes, 13 Okl. 339, 74 P. 506, 507 (1903). The writ of habeas corpus has not been suspended or altered by the Post-Conviction Procedure Act so long as the statutory appeal procedures enacted by the Legislature have been first exhausted. The writ of habeas corpus is not an authorization to bypass the statutory appeal process. Twyman v. Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, 837 P.2d 380 (Okl.Cr.1992). See also Sections 1331 through 1355 of Title 12.
2. (2) If habeas corpus is denied in the District Court, the transfer or removal of the movant out of the jurisdiction of that court shall be stayed for ten (10) days if the petitioner gives notice of intent to seek a writ in this Court.
3. D. Rehearing. Once this Court has rendered its decision on an extraordinary writ, that decision shall constitute a final order. A petition for rehearing is not allowed. The Clerk of this Court shall return to the movant any petitions for rehearing tendered for filing.

Amended in accordance with 2003 OK CR 9, eff. May 21, 2003.