consequences waiver in Oklahoma

1985Williams v. State, 648 P.2d 843 (Okl.Cr.1982); Cleveland v. State, 566 P.2d 144 (Okl.Cr.1977).

1984Cleveland v. State, 566 P.2d 144 (Okl.Cr.1977).

2010In support of this claim, Smith relies on those portions of Dr. Mash and Dr. Saint Martin's 2010 reports that opine that Smith is mentally retarded and that Smith's substance abuse could have caused brain damage that impaired his cognitive functioning to the extent that he could not adequately comprehend the Miranda warnings given him by police or assess the consequences of a waiver of the rights covered by those warnings. 1 33 Again, to prevail on a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel, a defendant must show prejudice from the alleged error of counsel, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. a

2010In support of this claim, Smith relies on those portions of Dr. Mash and Dr. Saint Martin's 2010 reports that opine that Smith is mentally retarded and that Smith's substance abuse could have caused brain damage that impaired his cognitive functioning to the extent that he could not adequately comprehend the Miranda warnings given him by police or assess the consequences of a waiver of the rights covered by those warnings. 1 33 Again, to prevail on a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel, a defendant must show prejudice from the alleged error of counsel, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. a

1997Rosteck, 749 P.2d at 558 .

1994State v. Carrillo, 156 Ariz. 125 , 750 P.2d 883, 894-95 (1988). [29] See, e.g., Townsend, 372 U.S. at 307 , 83 S.Ct. at 754 , 9 L.Ed.2d at 782 . [30] Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1539 (11 Cir.1988), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 933 (1988). [31] One of the testifying psychiatrists, Hans Von Brauchtisch, has submitted an affidavit dated August 12, 1991, in which he says he could have testified about McGregor's ability to execute a valid Miranda waiver; that he has now considered the question and believes that McGregor's mental illness impaired his judgment and f

1994State v. Carrillo, 156 Ariz. 125 , 750 P.2d 883, 894-95 (1988). [29] See, e.g., Townsend, 372 U.S. at 307 , 83 S.Ct. at 754 , 9 L.Ed.2d at 782 . [30] Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1539 (11 Cir.1988), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 933 (1988). [31] One of the testifying psychiatrists, Hans Von Brauchtisch, has submitted an affidavit dated August 12, 1991, in which he says he could have testified about McGregor's ability to execute a valid Miranda waiver; that he has now considered the question and believes that McGregor's mental illness impaired his judgment and f

1994Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1539 (11 Cir.1988), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 933 (1988). .One of the testifying psychiatrists, Hans Von Brauchtisch, has submitted an affidavit dated August 12, 1991, in which he says he could have testified about McGregor's ability to execute a valid Miranda waiver; that he has now considered the question and believes that McGregor’s mental illness impaired his judgment and faculties such that he could not understand the meaning of the warnings or rationally or reasonably apprehend the consequences of warnings as they affected

1994State v. Carrillo, 156 Ariz. 125 , 750 P.2d 883, 894-95 (1988). [29] See, e.g., Townsend, 372 U.S. at 307 , 83 S.Ct. at 754 , 9 L.Ed.2d at 782 . [30] Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1539 (11 Cir.1988), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 933 (1988). [31] One of the testifying psychiatrists, Hans Von Brauchtisch, has submitted an affidavit dated August 12, 1991, in which he says he could have testified about McGregor's ability to execute a valid Miranda waiver; that he has now considered the question and believes that McGregor's mental illness impaired his judgment and f

1994Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1539 (11 Cir.1988), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 933 (1988). .One of the testifying psychiatrists, Hans Von Brauchtisch, has submitted an affidavit dated August 12, 1991, in which he says he could have testified about McGregor's ability to execute a valid Miranda waiver; that he has now considered the question and believes that McGregor’s mental illness impaired his judgment and faculties such that he could not understand the meaning of the warnings or rationally or reasonably apprehend the consequences of warnings as they affected

1994State v. Carrillo, 156 Ariz. 125 , 750 P.2d 883, 894-95 (1988). [29] See, e.g., Townsend, 372 U.S. at 307 , 83 S.Ct. at 754 , 9 L.Ed.2d at 782 . [30] Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1539 (11 Cir.1988), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 933 (1988). [31] One of the testifying psychiatrists, Hans Von Brauchtisch, has submitted an affidavit dated August 12, 1991, in which he says he could have testified about McGregor's ability to execute a valid Miranda waiver; that he has now considered the question and believes that McGregor's mental illness impaired his judgment and f

1994Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1539 (11 Cir.1988), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 933 (1988). .One of the testifying psychiatrists, Hans Von Brauchtisch, has submitted an affidavit dated August 12, 1991, in which he says he could have testified about McGregor's ability to execute a valid Miranda waiver; that he has now considered the question and believes that McGregor’s mental illness impaired his judgment and faculties such that he could not understand the meaning of the warnings or rationally or reasonably apprehend the consequences of warnings as they affected

1994State v. Carrillo, 156 Ariz. 125 , 750 P.2d 883, 894-95 (1988). [29] See, e.g., Townsend, 372 U.S. at 307 , 83 S.Ct. at 754 , 9 L.Ed.2d at 782 . [30] Miller v. Dugger, 838 F.2d 1530, 1539 (11 Cir.1988), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061 , 108 S.Ct. 2832 , 100 L.Ed.2d 933 (1988). [31] One of the testifying psychiatrists, Hans Von Brauchtisch, has submitted an affidavit dated August 12, 1991, in which he says he could have testified about McGregor's ability to execute a valid Miranda waiver; that he has now considered the question and believes that McGregor's mental illness impaired his judgment and f

1985Williams v. State, 648 P.2d 843 (Okl.Cr.1982); Cleveland v. State, 566 P.2d 144 (Okl.Cr.1977).

1984See also United States v. Fera, 616 F.2d 590 (1st Cir.1980); United States v. Hines, 605 F.2d 132 (4th Cir.1979); and Williams v. State, 572 P.2d 238 (Okl.Cr.1977) (it is immaterial that no written waiver was obtained, since waiver of Miranda rights may be manifested by other than an express statement to that effect). *850 This Court will not disturb a ruling permitting the introduction of a confession when supported by sufficient evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights, and understood the consequences of the waiver.

1984See also United States v. Fera, 616 F.2d 590 (1st Cir.1980); United States v. Hines, 605 F.2d 132 (4th Cir.1979); and Williams v. State, 572 P.2d 238 (Okl.Cr.1977) (it is immaterial that no written waiver was obtained, since waiver of Miranda rights may be manifested by other than an express statement to that effect). *850 This Court will not disturb a ruling permitting the introduction of a confession when supported by sufficient evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights, and understood the consequences of the waiver.

1981Castleberry v. State, 522 P.2d 257 (Okl.Cr.1974); Williams v. State, 542 P.2d 554 (Okl.Cr.1975).

1981Castleberry v. State, 522 P.2d 257 (Okl.Cr.1974); Williams v. State, 542 P.2d 554 (Okl.Cr.1975).

1972Obviously, the defendant decided to appear at the police station without counsel and once there reaffirmed this decision by not then seeking counsel.” In Ezell, supra, Judge Nix stated: “It is reasonable to assume that a minor of tender years is deemed to be incapable of waiving his constitutional rights, in the absence of a showing as to his knowledge of the law and that he fully understood the consequences of the waiver and fully understood the effect thereof. * * * ” Defendant in the instant case, by his own testimony, acknowledged that he understood the consequences of the waiver of his Mi

1971This Court said in Story v. State, Okl.Cr., 452 P.2d 822 (1969), that: “Ordinarily, confessions of defendant 17 and 18 years of age, [defendant in case before us now was 16] accused of burglary, are inadmissible in evidence where there is absence of parent or guardian, or counsel, since such defendants should be deemed incapable of waiving the constitutional and statutory safeguards provided by law in a criminal case, unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the minor defendants fully understood the effect and the results growing out of such waiver.” *784 There was no evidence as to th

1948The original order was carried out during a portion of the trial.” In the case of Tanksley v. United States, 9 Cir., 145 F. 2d 58 , 156 A. L.