Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
NELOMS v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Relief for Proposition IV is denied. 5. ¶ 16 “This Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range ‘unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience.’” Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 39 , 274 P.3d 161, 171 (quoting Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28 , ¶ 5 n.3, 34 P.3d 148 , 149 n.3). 2016Relief for Proposition IV is denied. 5. ¶ 16 “This Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range ‘unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience.’” Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 39 , 274 P.3d 161, 171 (quoting Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28 , ¶ 5 n.3, 34 P.3d 148 , 149 n.3). | 2 | 2 |
Dowling v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024Id. 493 U.S. at 352-54. 2024Id. 493 U.S. at 352-54. | 1 | 1 |
Darden v. Wainwrightgreen1 sentence2022See Darden v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986); Shaw , 2021 OK CR 33 Williams , 2021 OK CR 19 ¶22 Proposition X. | 1 | 1 |
Lisenba v. Californiagreen2 sentences2020Spencer v. Texas , 385 U.S. 554, 563-564 (1967); Lisenba v. California , 314 U.S. 219, 228 (1941). 2020Spencer v. Texas , 385 U.S. 554, 563-564 (1967); Lisenba v. California , 314 U.S. 219, 228 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
Spencer v. Texasgreen2 sentences2020Spencer v. Texas , 385 U.S. 554, 563-564 (1967); Lisenba v. California , 314 U.S. 219, 228 (1941). 2020Spencer v. Texas , 385 U.S. 554, 563-564 (1967); Lisenba v. California , 314 U.S. 219, 228 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
STEWART v. STATEgreen2 sentences2020Appellant was not deprived of a fundamentally fair trial in violation of due process from this evidence. 12 O.S.2011, §§ 2401-2403; Stewart v. State , 2016 OK CR 9, ¶ 19, 372 P.3d 508, 512. 2020Appellant was not deprived of a fundamentally fair trial in violation of due process from this evidence. 12 O.S.2011, §§ 2401-2403; Stewart v. State , 2016 OK CR 9, ¶ 19, 372 P.3d 508, 512. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carol v. State
green
2 sentences2016Carol v. State, 1988 OK CR 114, ¶ 10 , 756 P.2d 614, 617 ; Croan v. State, 1984 OK CR 69, ¶ 10 , 682 P.2d 236, 238 . ¶ 15 In summary, the challenged arguments—taken individually or collectively— did not deny Appellant a fundamentally fair trial in violation of due process. 2016Carol v. State, 1988 OK CR 114, ¶ 10 , 756 P.2d 614, 617 ; Croan v. State, 1984 OK CR 69, ¶ 10 , 682 P.2d 236, 238 . ¶ 15 In summary, the challenged arguments—taken individually or collectively— did not deny Appellant a fundamentally fair trial in violation of due process. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Croan v. State
green
2 sentences2016Carol v. State, 1988 OK CR 114, ¶ 10 , 756 P.2d 614, 617 ; Croan v. State, 1984 OK CR 69, ¶ 10 , 682 P.2d 236, 238 . ¶ 15 In summary, the challenged arguments—taken individually or collectively— did not deny Appellant a fundamentally fair trial in violation of due process. 2016Carol v. State, 1988 OK CR 114, ¶ 10 , 756 P.2d 614, 617 ; Croan v. State, 1984 OK CR 69, ¶ 10 , 682 P.2d 236, 238 . ¶ 15 In summary, the challenged arguments—taken individually or collectively— did not deny Appellant a fundamentally fair trial in violation of due process. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Rea v. State
green
2 sentences2016Relief for Proposition IV is denied. 5. ¶ 16 “This Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range ‘unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience.’” Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 39 , 274 P.3d 161, 171 (quoting Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28 , ¶ 5 n.3, 34 P.3d 148 , 149 n.3). 2016Relief for Proposition IV is denied. 5. ¶ 16 “This Court will not modify a sentence within the statutory range ‘unless, considering all the facts and circumstances, it shocks the conscience.’” Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 39 , 274 P.3d 161, 171 (quoting Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28 , ¶ 5 n.3, 34 P.3d 148 , 149 n.3). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
WILLIAMS v. STATE
green
1 sentence2022See Darden v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986); Shaw , 2021 OK CR 33 Williams , 2021 OK CR 19 ¶22 Proposition X. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
SHAW v. STATE
neutral
1 sentence2022See Darden v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986); Shaw , 2021 OK CR 33 Williams , 2021 OK CR 19 ¶22 Proposition X. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
James v. State
green
2 sentences2009Now on appeal, he argues admission of the evidence denied him the right to a fundamentally fair trial in violation of due process. ¶ 23 In James v. State, 2007 OK CR 1, ¶ 4 , 152 P.3d 255, 257 , this Court overturned the "greater latitude" rule adopted in Myers v. State, 2000 OK CR 25 , 17 P.3d 1021 , finding it "unworkable." In my dissent, I addressed the history of the "greater latitude" rule. 2009Now on appeal, he argues admission of the evidence denied him the right to a fundamentally fair trial in violation of due process. ¶ 23 In James v. State, 2007 OK CR 1, ¶ 4 , 152 P.3d 255, 257 , this Court overturned the "greater latitude" rule adopted in Myers v. State, 2000 OK CR 25 , 17 P.3d 1021 , finding it "unworkable." In my dissent, I addressed the history of the "greater latitude" rule. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Myers v. State
green
2 sentences2009Now on appeal, he argues admission of the evidence denied him the right to a fundamentally fair trial in violation of due process. ¶ 23 In James v. State, 2007 OK CR 1, ¶ 4 , 152 P.3d 255, 257 , this Court overturned the "greater latitude" rule adopted in Myers v. State, 2000 OK CR 25 , 17 P.3d 1021 , finding it "unworkable." In my dissent, I addressed the history of the "greater latitude" rule. 2009Now on appeal, he argues admission of the evidence denied him the right to a fundamentally fair trial in violation of due process. ¶ 23 In James v. State, 2007 OK CR 1, ¶ 4 , 152 P.3d 255, 257 , this Court overturned the "greater latitude" rule adopted in Myers v. State, 2000 OK CR 25 , 17 P.3d 1021 , finding it "unworkable." In my dissent, I addressed the history of the "greater latitude" rule. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.