summary defense in Oklahoma

1999The court noted that the father was “a farmer, living on a rented farm and is in good financial circumstances [and] the plaintiff [father] and defendants [sister and her husband] have good reputations, and neither attacks the character of the other or the ability of the other to properly care for the child.” ¶ 11 The Osbum decision gave a summary of factors to be considered “[i]n deciding cases of this nature” .that would later be cited verbatim in the 1995 case of Olinghouse v. Olinghouse, 1995 OK CIV APP 104, ¶ 13 , 908 P.2d 280, 286 , upon which Mother relies.

1999The court noted that the father was “a farmer, living on a rented farm and is in good financial circumstances [and] the plaintiff [father] and defendants [sister and her husband] have good reputations, and neither attacks the character of the other or the ability of the other to properly care for the child.” ¶ 11 The Osbum decision gave a summary of factors to be considered “[i]n deciding cases of this nature” .that would later be cited verbatim in the 1995 case of Olinghouse v. Olinghouse, 1995 OK CIV APP 104, ¶ 13 , 908 P.2d 280, 286 , upon which Mother relies.

1999Both Osburn, 169 P.2d at 294 , and Olinghouse , 1995 OK CIV APP 104, ¶ 13 , 908 P.2d at 286 , apply the following rules: (a) Since the trial judge has a better opportunity to observe the parties and-witnesses, he is in a better position to know what is best for the child than is this court from a review of the record,'and his finding will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the weight of the evidence or is contrary to law; (b) there are three rights or interests that are to be given consideration in the following order of importance (1) that of the child, (2) that of the parent, and

1999Both Osburn, 169 P.2d at 294 , and Olinghouse , 1995 OK CIV APP 104, ¶ 13 , 908 P.2d at 286 , apply the following rules: (a) Since the trial judge has a better opportunity to observe the parties and witnesses, he is in a better position to know what is best for the child than is this court from a review of the record, and his finding will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the weight of the evidence or is contrary to law; (b) there are three rights or interests that are to be given consideration in the following order of importance (1) that of the child, (2) that of the parent, and

2022However, the State Board indicated Barnes's due process interests were protected because he would receive a pre-deprivation remedy in the form of his revocation hearing after the emergency suspension, and this pre-deprivation remedy satisfied due process. ¶41 Thirty-four years ago in Short v. Kiamichi Area Vocational--Technical School District No. 7 of Choctaw County , 1988 OK 89 761 P.2d 472 Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill , supra , and explained "before a pretermination hearing is required, it must be demonstrated that there is an existing right in continued employment." Short and

2022However, the State Board indicated Barnes's due process interests were protected because he would receive a pre-deprivation remedy in the form of his revocation hearing after the emergency suspension, and this pre-deprivation remedy satisfied due process. ¶41 Thirty-four years ago in Short v. Kiamichi Area Vocational--Technical School District No. 7 of Choctaw County , 1988 OK 89 761 P.2d 472 Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill , supra , and explained "before a pretermination hearing is required, it must be demonstrated that there is an existing right in continued employment." Short and

2006The sentence of death was no longer in effect, and the trial court had no authority to uphold it. [6] Wallace v. State, 1995 OK CR 19 , 893 P.2d 504, 510 ; Grasso v. State, 1993 OK CR 33 , 857 P.2d 802, 806 . [7] Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314 , 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506 , 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). [8] Fluke v. State, 2000 OK CR 19 , 14 P.3d 565, 567 ; Grasso, 857 P.2d at 806 . [9] Wallace, 893 P.2d at 512-13 . [10] The proffer of mitigating evidence prepared for the trial court includes a summary of the defense expert's findings.

2006The sentence of death was no longer in effect, and the trial court had no authority to uphold it. [6] Wallace v. State, 1995 OK CR 19 , 893 P.2d 504, 510 ; Grasso v. State, 1993 OK CR 33 , 857 P.2d 802, 806 . [7] Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314 , 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506 , 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). [8] Fluke v. State, 2000 OK CR 19 , 14 P.3d 565, 567 ; Grasso, 857 P.2d at 806 . [9] Wallace, 893 P.2d at 512-13 . [10] The proffer of mitigating evidence prepared for the trial court includes a summary of the defense expert's findings.

2006The sentence of death was no longer in effect, and the trial court had no authority to uphold it. [6] Wallace v. State, 1995 OK CR 19 , 893 P.2d 504, 510 ; Grasso v. State, 1993 OK CR 33 , 857 P.2d 802, 806 . [7] Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314 , 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506 , 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). [8] Fluke v. State, 2000 OK CR 19 , 14 P.3d 565, 567 ; Grasso, 857 P.2d at 806 . [9] Wallace, 893 P.2d at 512-13 . [10] The proffer of mitigating evidence prepared for the trial court includes a summary of the defense expert's findings.

2006The sentence of death was no longer in effect, and the trial court had no authority to uphold it. [6] Wallace v. State, 1995 OK CR 19 , 893 P.2d 504, 510 ; Grasso v. State, 1993 OK CR 33 , 857 P.2d 802, 806 . [7] Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314 , 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506 , 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). [8] Fluke v. State, 2000 OK CR 19 , 14 P.3d 565, 567 ; Grasso, 857 P.2d at 806 . [9] Wallace, 893 P.2d at 512-13 . [10] The proffer of mitigating evidence prepared for the trial court includes a summary of the defense expert's findings.

2006The sentence of death was no longer in effect, and the trial court had no authority to uphold it. [6] Wallace v. State, 1995 OK CR 19 , 893 P.2d 504, 510 ; Grasso v. State, 1993 OK CR 33 , 857 P.2d 802, 806 . [7] Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314 , 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506 , 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). [8] Fluke v. State, 2000 OK CR 19 , 14 P.3d 565, 567 ; Grasso, 857 P.2d at 806 . [9] Wallace, 893 P.2d at 512-13 . [10] The proffer of mitigating evidence prepared for the trial court includes a summary of the defense expert's findings.

2006The sentence of death was no longer in effect, and the trial court had no authority to uphold it. [6] Wallace v. State, 1995 OK CR 19 , 893 P.2d 504, 510 ; Grasso v. State, 1993 OK CR 33 , 857 P.2d 802, 806 . [7] Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314 , 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506 , 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). [8] Fluke v. State, 2000 OK CR 19 , 14 P.3d 565, 567 ; Grasso, 857 P.2d at 806 . [9] Wallace, 893 P.2d at 512-13 . [10] The proffer of mitigating evidence prepared for the trial court includes a summary of the defense expert's findings.

2006The expert concluded that Hooper was severely and profoundly depressed. [11] The trial court had conducted this same conversation in the September 8 hearing. [12] Wallace, 893 P.2d at 513 . [13] Duty v. State, 2004 OK CR 20 , 89 P.3d 1158, 1160 ; Wallace, 893 P.2d at 510 ; Grasso, 857 P.2d at 806 . [14] Those questions are: (a) whether the defendant understands the nature of the charges against him; (b) whether he can consult with his attorney and rationally assist in the preparation of his defense; (c) if the answer to questions (a) or (b) is no, whether the defendant can attain competency wi

2006The expert concluded that Hooper was severely and profoundly depressed. [11] The trial court had conducted this same conversation in the September 8 hearing. [12] Wallace, 893 P.2d at 513 . [13] Duty v. State, 2004 OK CR 20 , 89 P.3d 1158, 1160 ; Wallace, 893 P.2d at 510 ; Grasso, 857 P.2d at 806 . [14] Those questions are: (a) whether the defendant understands the nature of the charges against him; (b) whether he can consult with his attorney and rationally assist in the preparation of his defense; (c) if the answer to questions (a) or (b) is no, whether the defendant can attain competency wi

2006The sentence of death was no longer in effect, and the trial court had no authority to uphold it. [6] Wallace v. State, 1995 OK CR 19 , 893 P.2d 504, 510 ; Grasso v. State, 1993 OK CR 33 , 857 P.2d 802, 806 . [7] Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314 , 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506 , 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). [8] Fluke v. State, 2000 OK CR 19 , 14 P.3d 565, 567 ; Grasso, 857 P.2d at 806 . [9] Wallace, 893 P.2d at 512-13 . [10] The proffer of mitigating evidence prepared for the trial court includes a summary of the defense expert's findings.

2006The sentence of death was no longer in effect, and the trial court had no authority to uphold it. [6] Wallace v. State, 1995 OK CR 19 , 893 P.2d 504, 510 ; Grasso v. State, 1993 OK CR 33 , 857 P.2d 802, 806 . [7] Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312, 314 , 86 S.Ct. 1505, 1506 , 16 L.Ed.2d 583 (1966). [8] Fluke v. State, 2000 OK CR 19 , 14 P.3d 565, 567 ; Grasso, 857 P.2d at 806 . [9] Wallace, 893 P.2d at 512-13 . [10] The proffer of mitigating evidence prepared for the trial court includes a summary of the defense expert's findings.

1979To the contrary, in response to Appellant’s question that if the court was going to hold a summary hearing and find him in contempt did he not have the right to have counsel present the trial court responded: “I don’t need a hearing for some jury to tell me what a lawyer has done here.” [Tr. 8], In speaking to a similar issue in Roselle v. State, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 486 (1973), we stated: “The case at bench involves a hybrid situation in which the offense does in part occur in the presence of the court.