Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7306-1.1 (2026)
Renumbered as § 2-5-101 of Title 10A by Laws 2009, c
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
234, § 187, emerg. eff. May 21, 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1997–2010 · leading case: Wright v. State, 2001 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001).
Wright v. State, 2001 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001). “2 of Title 10 has since been renumbered as 10 O.S.Supp.1997, § 7306-1.1. For purposes of the issues raised in this appeal, both sections are virtually identical.”
World Publ'g Co. v. White, 2001 OK 48 (Okla. 2001). “¶ 4 In my view, the language of the (C)(2) exception is unambiguous and applies solely to individuals 13 to 17 years old, not to adults, who are charged with one of the crimes enumerated in 10 O.S.1997, § 7306-1.1. The (C)(2) exception expressly refers to § 7306-1.”
Cipriano v. State, 2001 OK CR 25 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001). “Our review of the record shows Appellant was afforded the protections of the reverse certification process pursuant to 10 O.S.1991, § 7306-1.1, the sentence was properly based in the evidence and supported by the evidence.”
Brennan v. State, 754 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1999). “1998); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7306-1.1 (Supp.1998) (requiring transfer of a thirteen-year-old juvenile charged with first-degree murder to criminal court)); Pennsylvania ( see 18 Pa.”
Wilson v. State of Oklahoma, 363 F. App'x 595 (10th Cir. 2010). “) Oklahoma law allows for an immediate appeal from the denial of a reverse certification order, see Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 7306-1.1 (G), but Wilson did not appeal.”
M.K.H. v. State, 946 P.2d 677 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “service on the parents, guardian or next friend, of a certified copy of the Information and warrant required by 10 O.S.Supp. 1996, § 7306-1.1(D)(1). Pursuant to 22 O.”
J.D.P. v. State, 989 P.2d 948 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). “¶ 6 The provisions of the Youthful Offender Act do not specifically set forth the burden of proof to be applied in the trial court upon the accused’s presentation of his or her motion for certification to the juvenile system.”
C.R.B. v. State, 973 P.2d 339 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). “Under this section, a judge need not detail responses to each of the guidelines but shall state that each of the guidelines was considered in reaching the decision. The majority is apparently offended by this provision.”
W.L.A. v. State, 60 P.3d 1043 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). “See 10 O.S.2001, § 7306-1.1, et seq. ¶ 16 As such, we FIND that if the State elects to file a motion for imposition of adult sentence while the matter is still pending before a magistrate, that magistrate has jurisdiction'to decide the motion by making the requisite findings of…”
State v. Murray, 947 P.2d 591 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “10 O.S.Supp.1995, § 7306-1.1(A) provides, in part, that “[A]ny person sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age who is charged with murder, kidnapping, robbery with a dangerous weapon, robbery in the first degree if personal injury results, rape in the first degree, rape by…”
MKH v. State, 946 P.2d 677 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “On appeal Appellant raised one proposition of error: The order denying certification of Appellant as a child is void because the District Court lacked jurisdiction due to lack of service on the parents, guardian or next friend, of a certified copy of the Information and warrant…”
JDP v. State, 1999 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). “¶ 6 The provisions of the Youthful Offender Act do not specifically set forth the burden of proof to be applied in the trial court upon the accused's presentation of his or her motion for certification to the juvenile system.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7306-1.1(A) — 1 case
State v. Murray, 947 P.2d 591 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “10 O.S.Supp.1995, § 7306-1.1(A) provides, in part, that “[A]ny person sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) years of age who is charged with murder, kidnapping, robbery with a dangerous weapon, robbery in the first degree if personal injury results, rape in the first degree, rape by…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7306-1.1(D)(1) — 2 cases
M.K.H. v. State, 946 P.2d 677 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “service on the parents, guardian or next friend, of a certified copy of the Information and warrant required by 10 O.S.Supp. 1996, § 7306-1.1(D)(1). Pursuant to 22 O.”
MKH v. State, 946 P.2d 677 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “On appeal Appellant raised one proposition of error: The order denying certification of Appellant as a child is void because the District Court lacked jurisdiction due to lack of service on the parents, guardian or next friend, of a certified copy of the Information and warrant…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 7306-1.1(E) — 5 cases
Wright v. State, 2001 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001). “2 of Title 10 has since been renumbered as 10 O.S.Supp.1997, § 7306-1.1. For purposes of the issues raised in this appeal, both sections are virtually identical.”
J.D.P. v. State, 989 P.2d 948 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). “¶ 6 The provisions of the Youthful Offender Act do not specifically set forth the burden of proof to be applied in the trial court upon the accused’s presentation of his or her motion for certification to the juvenile system.”
C.R.B. v. State, 973 P.2d 339 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). “Under this section, a judge need not detail responses to each of the guidelines but shall state that each of the guidelines was considered in reaching the decision. The majority is apparently offended by this provision.”
JDP v. State, 1999 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). “¶ 6 The provisions of the Youthful Offender Act do not specifically set forth the burden of proof to be applied in the trial court upon the accused's presentation of his or her motion for certification to the juvenile system.”
CRB v. State, 1999 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.