different ways. If there be in any other provision of the laws of this state a provision making any specific act or omission criminal and providing the punishment therefor, and there be in this title any provision or section making the same act or omission a criminal offense or prescribing the punishment therefor, that offense and the punishment thereof, shall be governed by the special provisions made in relation thereto, and not by the provisions of this title. But an act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this title may be punished under any of such provisions, except that in cases specified in Sections 51.1 and 54 of this title, the punishments therein prescribed are substituted for those prescribed for a first offense, but in no case can a criminal act or omission be punished under more than one section of law; and an acquittal or conviction and sentence under one section of law, bars the prosecution for the same act or omission under any other section of law. R.L. 1910, § 2092. Amended by Laws 1970, c. 199, § 1; Laws 1987, c. 226, § 1, operative July 1, 1987; Laws 1997, c. 133, § 14, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 5, § 5, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2019, c. 227, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2019. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 14 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
150
cases (
15 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case:
Hammon v. State, 898 P.2d 1287 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
Hammon v. State, 898 P.2d 1287 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 10× “II, § 21; 21 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 11. He claims his convictions for using a firearm while in the commission of a felony, feloniously pointing a firearm and concealing stolen property are subsumed in his conviction for felony murder.”
Davis v. State, 1999 OK CR 48 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
· cites it 10× “¶ 6 As a separate matter, not involving double jeopardy issues, we must determine if the convictions violate the provisions of 21 O.S.1991, § 11, as Davis alleges. Davis cites Hale v.”
Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “VI ¶52 In his sixth proposition of error, Appellant complains that his Count 2 and Count 6 convictions violate the double jeopardy clause and the statutory proscription against multiple punishments contained in 21 O.S.2011, § 11. Appellant tells us his robbery and burglary…”
Brink v. State, 2021 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
· cites it 9× “¶3 In his sole proposition of error, Appellant contends that his convictions on all five counts violate 21 O.S.2011, § 11 because he was punished for the same act.”
Pavatt v. State, 2007 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “ś 19 In Proposition 6, Appellant claims that convictions for both First Degree Murder, and Conspiracy to Commit Murder, violate both the prohibitions against double jeopardy in the federal and state constitutions, as well as the prohibition against double punishment found in 21…”
Jones v. State, 899 P.2d 635 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 10× “21 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 11. Accordingly, we find Jones' conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle must be reversed and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss.”
Brown v. State, 2008 OK CR 3 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008).
· cites it 7× “Multiple Punishment ¶ 2 In his first claim of error, Brown argues that his convictions on 100 counts of possession of child pornography violate the statutory prohibition against imposing multiple punishments for a single offense found at 21 O.S.2001, § 11. He also argues that…”
Logsdon v. State, 2010 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “Multiple Punishment & Double Jeopardy Racketeering (Count 17) and Predicate Offenses (Counts 1 through 16) ¶ 28 Logsdon claims that his conviction for racketeering in Count 17 violates the statutory prohibition against multiple punishment at 21 O.”
Tafolla v. State, 2019 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “¶37 Tafolla argues that his convictions for both carrying a weapon unlawfully and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon violate the statutory prohibition against multiple punishments for a single criminal act under 21 O.S.2011, § 11 and the protections against double…”
Dennis v. Poppel, 222 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Dennis suggests he should be convicted of only one offense and not receive four convictions in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause and Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 11 prohibiting multiple punishments.”
Mooney v. State, 1999 OK CR 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Thus, Mooney maintains his subsequent prosecution for the same course of conduct violates (1) Title 21, Section 11 of the Oklahoma statutes and (2) the prohibition against double jeopardy found in the federal and state constitutions.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 11(A) — 16 cases
Brink v. State, 2021 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
“¶3 In his sole proposition of error, Appellant contends that his convictions on all five counts violate 21 O.S.2011, § 11 because he was punished for the same act.”
Brown v. State, 2008 OK CR 3 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008).
“Multiple Punishment ¶ 2 In his first claim of error, Brown argues that his convictions on 100 counts of possession of child pornography violate the statutory prohibition against imposing multiple punishments for a single offense found at 21 O.S.2001, § 11. He also argues that…”
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.