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.
6 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 53, 230 P.3d 888, 906 (holding that denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.11(B) necessarily involves an adverse adjudication of the corresponding ineffective counsel claim under the more rigorous Strickland standard); State v. Blevins , 1992 OK CR 4, ¶ 2, 825 P.2d 270, 271. ¶9 I am authorized to state that Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn joins in this separate opinion specially concurring. 2020Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 53, 230 P.3d 888, 906 (holding that denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.11(B) necessarily involves an adverse adjudication of the corresponding ineffective counsel claim under the more rigorous Strickland standard); State v. Blevins , 1992 OK CR 4, ¶ 2, 825 P.2d 270, 271. ¶9 I am authorized to state that Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn joins in this separate opinion specially concurring. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Blevinsgreen2 sentences2020Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 53, 230 P.3d 888, 906 (holding that denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.11(B) necessarily involves an adverse adjudication of the corresponding ineffective counsel claim under the more rigorous Strickland standard); State v. Blevins , 1992 OK CR 4, ¶ 2, 825 P.2d 270, 271. ¶9 I am authorized to state that Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn joins in this separate opinion specially concurring. 2020Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6, ¶ 53 , 230 P.3d 888, 906 (holding that denial of a request for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.11(B) necessarily involves an adverse adjudication of the corresponding ineffective counsel claim under the more rigorous Strickland standard); State v. Blevins , 1992 OK CR 4 , ¶ 2, 825 P.2d 270, 271 . ¶9 I am authorized to state that Vice Presiding Judge Kuehn joins in this separate opinion specially concurring. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Minorgreen1 sentence2011Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354 , 1 21, 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 180 P. 813, 814 (1913). 13 However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, 130 , 87 P.3d 908, 942 , this Court said: Mere consumption of alcohol and mari-juona is not sufficient to raise the voluntary intoxication defense without a showing that it prevented defendant from forming a premeditated intent. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 , 2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 , | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oxendine v. State
green
2 sentences2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 , 2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 , | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Frederick v. State
green
2 sentences2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 , 2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 , | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 , 2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 , | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Romano v. State
green
2 sentences2008Romano v. State, 1995 OK CR 74, ¶ 80 , 909 P.2d 92, 120 . 2008Romano v. State, 1995 OK CR 74, ¶ 80 , 909 P.2d 92, 120 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Anderson v. State
green
2 sentences2008Appellant sees this statutory denial of "good time credits" on a par with the "85% Rule" of 21 O.S.Supp.2003, § 13.1, warranting an extension of Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6 , 130 P.3d 273 , and a corresponding instruction to the sentencing jury. ¶ 9 Appellant waived review of the issue by failing to object or request such an instruction at trial, and we review only for plain *137 error. 2008Appellant sees this statutory denial of "good time credits" on a par with the "85% Rule" of 21 O.S.Supp.2003, § 13.1, warranting an extension of Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6 , 130 P.3d 273 , and a corresponding instruction to the sentencing jury. ¶ 9 Appellant waived review of the issue by failing to object or request such an instruction at trial, and we review only for plain *137 error. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007See Proposition XI, infra; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). ¶ 91 Appellant argues in Proposition VII that the District Court erroneously excluded evidence that Jett and Lynch were affiliated with "notorious motorcycle gangs." Appellant claims on appeal that this evidence was relevant to his flight and his claim of self-defense. 2007See Proposition XI, infra; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). ¶ 91 Appellant argues in Proposition VII that the District Court erroneously excluded evidence that Jett and Lynch were affiliated with "notorious motorcycle gangs." Appellant claims on appeal that this evidence was relevant to his flight and his claim of self-defense. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Brown v. Fraser
green
1 sentence1972It is not in conflict with numbered paragraph (3) or that rule as explained in Brown v. Fraser, supra, and did not change, or relax, the statutory requirements for a variance on the grounds of unnecessary hardship. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.