21 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2018"Under Miranda , no statement obtained through custodial interrogation may be used against a defendant without a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights." Taylor , 2018 OK CR 6 , ¶ 6, 419 P.3d 265 (citing Miranda , 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. at 1612 ). ¶ 4 The record shows that Appellant was in custody at the time of his various recorded statements; that Appellant requested the presence of counsel repeatedly starting at the moment he was arrested in front of his apartment; that Appellant's statements were unwarned-that is, authorities never read him the warning mandated by Miranda , 384 U 2018"Under Miranda , no statement obtained through custodial interrogation may be used against a defendant without a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights." Taylor , 2018 OK CR 6 , ¶ 6, 419 P.3d 265 (citing Miranda , 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. at 1612 ). ¶ 4 The record shows that Appellant was in custody at the time of his various recorded statements; that Appellant requested the presence of counsel repeatedly starting at the moment he was arrested in front of his apartment; that Appellant's statements were unwarned-that is, authorities never read him the warning mandated by Miranda , 384 U | 2 | 5 |
Wallace v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Wallace v. State , 1995 OK CR 19 , ¶ 21, 893 P.2d 504 , 512-13. 2018See Wallace v. State , 1995 OK CR 19 , ¶ 21, 893 P.2d 504 , 512-13. | 2 | 2 |
Lineberry v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Lineberry v. State, 668 P.2d 1144, 1145-46 (Okl.Cr.1983). 1991Lineberry v. State, 668 P.2d 1144 (Okl.Cr.1983). | 1 | 2 |
LAMAR v. STATEgreen2 sentences2023See Lamar v. State , 2018 OK CR 8, ¶ 29 , 419 P.3d 283, 292 (setting forth requirements for an express waiver of counsel). 2023See Lamar v. State , 2018 OK CR 8, ¶ 29 , 419 P.3d 283, 292 (setting forth requirements for an express waiver of counsel). | 1 | 1 |
Braun v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Norton v. State , 2002 OK CR 10, ¶ 15 , 43 P.3d 404, 409 ("[T]he right to counsel is fundamental to ensuring the protection of practically every other constitutional right of the accused."); Id., 2002 OK CR 10, ¶ 7 , 43 P.3d at 407 (waiver of the right to counsel will not be "lightly presumed"); Braun v. State , 1995 OK CR 42, ¶ 10 , 909 P.2d 783, 787 ("A record of the knowing and voluntary waiver is mandatory, and absent a sufficient record, waiver will not be found."). ¶17 Burnham repeatedly told the trial court that he wanted legal representation and therefore did not expressly waive hi 2023See Norton v. State , 2002 OK CR 10, ¶ 15 , 43 P.3d 404, 409 ("[T]he right to counsel is fundamental to ensuring the protection of practically every other constitutional right of the accused."); Id., 2002 OK CR 10, ¶ 7 , 43 P.3d at 407 (waiver of the right to counsel will not be "lightly presumed"); Braun v. State , 1995 OK CR 42, ¶ 10 , 909 P.2d 783, 787 ("A record of the knowing and voluntary waiver is mandatory, and absent a sufficient record, waiver will not be found."). ¶17 Burnham repeatedly told the trial court that he wanted legal representation and therefore did not expressly waive hi | 1 | 1 |
Norton v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See Norton v. State , 2002 OK CR 10, ¶ 15 , 43 P.3d 404, 409 ("[T]he right to counsel is fundamental to ensuring the protection of practically every other constitutional right of the accused."); Id., 2002 OK CR 10, ¶ 7 , 43 P.3d at 407 (waiver of the right to counsel will not be "lightly presumed"); Braun v. State , 1995 OK CR 42, ¶ 10 , 909 P.2d 783, 787 ("A record of the knowing and voluntary waiver is mandatory, and absent a sufficient record, waiver will not be found."). ¶17 Burnham repeatedly told the trial court that he wanted legal representation and therefore did not expressly waive hi 2023See Norton v. State , 2002 OK CR 10, ¶ 15 , 43 P.3d 404, 409 ("[T]he right to counsel is fundamental to ensuring the protection of practically every other constitutional right of the accused."); Id., 2002 OK CR 10, ¶ 7 , 43 P.3d at 407 (waiver of the right to counsel will not be "lightly presumed"); Braun v. State , 1995 OK CR 42, ¶ 10 , 909 P.2d 783, 787 ("A record of the knowing and voluntary waiver is mandatory, and absent a sufficient record, waiver will not be found."). ¶17 Burnham repeatedly told the trial court that he wanted legal representation and therefore did not expressly waive hi | 1 | 1 |
Seth Yellen, A/K/A Ronald Larkins v. Thomas I. Cooper, Superintendent, Shadow Mountain Correctional Facility, and Lt. Ted Weber, Correctional Officergreen2 sentences2016Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 1474 (10th Cir. 1987). ¶ 5 Petitioner’s inaction when the arraignment was set on a date inconsistent with the IAD’s time limits, constituted a waiver of the protection of the IAD. 2016Yellen v. Cooper , 828 F.2d 1471, 1474 (10th Cir. 1987). ¶5 Petitioner's inaction when the arraignment was set on a date inconsistent with the IAD's time limits, constituted a waiver of the protection of the IAD. | 1 | 1 |
Tovar v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Tovar v. State, 867 So.2d 1206, 1207-08 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.2004). 2011Tovar v. State, 867 So.2d 1206, 1207-08 (Fla. App. 4 Dist.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See also Brown, 1994 OK CR 12, ¶ 50 , 871 P.2d at 71 (trial court need only advise defendant of right to be present at trial; it is not necessary for the trial court to "recite an extensive litany of the consequences of an accused's actions before an accused can be allowed to waive his right to be present during trial"). 13 In the present case, while Appellant's absence from trial was certainly voluntary in that she absented herself from trial of her own accord, the record does not reflect that she was ever advised of her right to be present at trial and that she knowingly waived that right. 2010See also Brown, 1994 OK CR 12, ¶ 50 , 871 P.2d at 71 (trial court need only advise defendant of right to be present at trial; it is not necessary for the trial court to "recite an extensive litany of the consequences of an accused's actions before an accused can be allowed to waive his right to be present during trial"). 13 In the present case, while Appellant's absence from trial was certainly voluntary in that she absented herself from trial of her own accord, the record does not reflect that she was ever advised of her right to be present at trial and that she knowingly waived that right. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Zerbstgreen2 sentences1991See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), Stevenson, supra. A record of the knowing and voluntary waiver is mandatory, and absent a sufficient record, waiver will not be found. 1991See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), Stevenson, supra. A record of the knowing and voluntary waiver is mandatory, and absent a sufficient record, waiver will not be found. | 1 | 1 |
Stevenson v. Stategreen1 sentence1991See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), Stevenson, supra. A record of the knowing and voluntary waiver is mandatory, and absent a sufficient record, waiver will not be found. | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1990See Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 , 108 S.Ct. 2389 , 101 L.Ed.2d 261 (1988). 1990See Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 , 108 S.Ct. 2389 , 101 L.Ed.2d 261 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Isom v. Stategreen1 sentence1988See Hoover v. State, 738 P.2d 943, 946 (Okla.Crim.App.1987); Isom v. State, 646 P.2d 1288, 1291 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); Birch v. State, 603 P.2d 1161, 1162 (Okla.Crim.App.1979); Williams v. State, 565 P.2d 46, 49 (Okla.Crim.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1988See Hoover v. State, 738 P.2d 943, 946 (Okla.Crim.App.1987); Isom v. State, 646 P.2d 1288, 1291 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); Birch v. State, 603 P.2d 1161, 1162 (Okla.Crim.App.1979); Williams v. State, 565 P.2d 46, 49 (Okla.Crim.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Birch v. Stategreen1 sentence1988See Hoover v. State, 738 P.2d 943, 946 (Okla.Crim.App.1987); Isom v. State, 646 P.2d 1288, 1291 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); Birch v. State, 603 P.2d 1161, 1162 (Okla.Crim.App.1979); Williams v. State, 565 P.2d 46, 49 (Okla.Crim.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Hoover v. Stategreen1 sentence1988See Hoover v. State, 738 P.2d 943, 946 (Okla.Crim.App.1987); Isom v. State, 646 P.2d 1288, 1291 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); Birch v. State, 603 P.2d 1161, 1162 (Okla.Crim.App.1979); Williams v. State, 565 P.2d 46, 49 (Okla.Crim.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Stategreen1 sentence1983See, Phillips v. State, 650 P.2d 910 (Okl.Cr.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. State
green
2 sentences2018Coleman v. State , 1980 OK CR 75 , ¶ 8, 617 P.2d 243 , 246. ¶ 6 As the opinion states, on remand, if Appellant makes a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel pursuant to the requirements of Faretta , standby counsel should be appointed. 2018Coleman v. State , 1980 OK CR 75 , ¶ 8, 617 P.2d 243 , 246. ¶ 6 As the opinion states, on remand, if Appellant makes a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel pursuant to the requirements of Faretta , standby counsel should be appointed. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
TAYLOR v. STATE
green
2 sentences2018"Under Miranda , no statement obtained through custodial interrogation may be used against a defendant without a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights." Taylor , 2018 OK CR 6 , ¶ 6, 419 P.3d 265 (citing Miranda , 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. at 1612 ). ¶ 4 The record shows that Appellant was in custody at the time of his various recorded statements; that Appellant requested the presence of counsel repeatedly starting at the moment he was arrested in front of his apartment; that Appellant's statements were unwarned-that is, authorities never read him the warning mandated by Miranda , 384 U 2018"Under Miranda , no statement obtained through custodial interrogation may be used against a defendant without a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights." Taylor , 2018 OK CR 6 , ¶ 6 (citing Miranda , 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S. Ct. at 1612 ). ¶4 The record shows that Appellant was in custody at the time of his various recorded statements; that Appellant requested the presence of counsel repeatedly starting at the moment he was arrested in front of his apartment; that Appellant's statements were unwarned--that is, authorities never read him the warning mandated by Miranda , 384 U.S. at 479 , | 2 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Terrance Ray Taylor
green
2 sentences2018It is worth repeating that both Appellant and attorneys appointed as standby counsel should be informed as to standby counsel's limited role, McKaskle v. Wiggins , 465 U.S. 168 , 177, 104 S.Ct. 944 , 950, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984), and particularly as it pertains to the punishment phase of trial. ¶ 7 I find the analysis in United States v. Taylor , 933 F.2d 307 , 312-13 (5th Cir. 1991) citing McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 177 -78 , 104 S.Ct. at 950 -51 , instructive as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delineated the limited nature of standby counsel's role as: The defendant preserves actual control over 2018It is worth repeating that both Appellant and attorneys appointed as standby counsel should be informed as to standby counsel's limited role, McKaskle v. Wiggins , 465 U.S. 168, 177 , 104 S.Ct. 944, 950 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984), and particularly as it pertains to the punishment phase of trial. ¶7 I find the analysis in United States v. Taylor , 933 F.2d 307 , 312--13 (5th Cir. 1991) citing McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 177 --78, 104 S.Ct. at 950 --51, instructive as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delineated the limited nature of standby counsel's role as: The defendant preserves actual control over | 2 | 2018–2018 |
McKaskle v. Wiggins
green
2 sentences2018It is worth repeating that both Appellant and attorneys appointed as standby counsel should be informed as to standby counsel's limited role, McKaskle v. Wiggins , 465 U.S. 168 , 177, 104 S.Ct. 944 , 950, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984), and particularly as it pertains to the punishment phase of trial. ¶ 7 I find the analysis in United States v. Taylor , 933 F.2d 307 , 312-13 (5th Cir. 1991) citing McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 177 -78 , 104 S.Ct. at 950 -51 , instructive as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delineated the limited nature of standby counsel's role as: The defendant preserves actual control over 2018It is worth repeating that both Appellant and attorneys appointed as standby counsel should be informed as to standby counsel's limited role, McKaskle v. Wiggins , 465 U.S. 168 , 177, 104 S.Ct. 944 , 950, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984), and particularly as it pertains to the punishment phase of trial. ¶ 7 I find the analysis in United States v. Taylor , 933 F.2d 307 , 312-13 (5th Cir. 1991) citing McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 177 -78 , 104 S.Ct. at 950 -51 , instructive as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delineated the limited nature of standby counsel's role as: The defendant preserves actual control over | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Watson v. State
green
2 sentences2018This Court has upheld a defendant's waiver of his or her right to be present at trial where a knowing and voluntary waiver was found in the record, i.e. , "a verbal waiver after the defendant was advised of his/her rights, a voluntary absence, or disruptive conduct after an advice of rights." Watson , 2010 OK CR 9 , ¶ 12, 234 P.3d at 114 . ¶12 Defense counsel's announcement of his feelings in the present case did not operate to waive Petitioner's constitutional and statutory rights. 2018This Court has upheld a defendant's waiver of his or her right to be present at trial where a knowing and voluntary waiver was found in the record, i.e. , "a verbal waiver after the defendant was advised of his/her rights, a voluntary absence, or disruptive conduct after an advice of rights." Watson , 2010 OK CR 9 , ¶ 12, 234 P.3d at 114 . ¶12 Defense counsel's announcement of his feelings in the present case did not operate to waive Petitioner's constitutional and statutory rights. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
TAYLOR v. STATE
green
1 sentence2018"Under Miranda , no statement obtained through custodial interrogation may be used against a defendant without a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights." Taylor , 2018 OK CR 6 , ¶ 6, 419 P.3d 265 (citing Miranda , 384 U.S. at 444 , 86 S.Ct. at 1612 ). ¶ 4 The record shows that Appellant was in custody at the time of his various recorded statements; that Appellant requested the presence of counsel repeatedly starting at the moment he was arrested in front of his apartment; that Appellant's statements were unwarned-that is, authorities never read him the warning mandated by Miranda , 384 U | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Colorado v. Spring
green
2 sentences2006In effect, he argues that his waiver of Miranda and resulting statement was compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because he waived his rights without being informed he would be questioned about crimes for which he was not arrested. ¶ 33 This argument "strains the meaning of compulsion past the breaking point." Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 573 , 107 S.Ct. 851, 857 , 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987). 2006In effect, he argues that his waiver of Miranda and resulting statement was compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because he waived his rights without being informed he would be questioned about crimes for which he was not arrested. ¶ 33 This argument "strains the meaning of compulsion past the breaking point." Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 573 , 107 S.Ct. 851, 857 , 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Dodd v. State
green
2 sentences2006Dodd, id. 2006Dodd, id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Carnley v. Cochran
green
2 sentences1983It is apparent to us that the appellant was adequately informed by the trial court and made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel in compliance with Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 , 82 S.Ct. 884 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962). 1983It is apparent to us that the appellant was adequately informed by the trial court and made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel in compliance with Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 , 82 S.Ct. 884 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence1983In Johnson v. State, 556 P.2d 1285 (Okl.Cr.1976), we held, citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants the accused the personal right to make his own defense without the assistance of counsel. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences1983In Johnson v. State, 556 P.2d 1285 (Okl.Cr.1976), we held, citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants the accused the personal right to make his own defense without the assistance of counsel. 1983In Johnson v. State, 556 P.2d 1285 (Okl.Cr.1976), we held, citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants the accused the personal right to make his own defense without the assistance of counsel. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.