Okla. Stat. » Title 21 — CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1 (2026)

See the following versions:

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

OS 21-13.1v1 (HB 3936, Laws 2024, c. 59, 5) OS 21-13.1v2 (HB 1001, Laws 2025, c. 18, § 2) OS 21-13.1v3 (SB 541, Laws 2025, c. 162, § 1) OS 21-13.1v4 (SB 631, Laws 2025, c. 352, § 1)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 160 cases (74 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Runnels v. State, 2018 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Runnels v. State, 2018 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “We found that this constituted a misstatement of law because nothing in either 21 O.S.Supp.2007, § 13.1 or the standard criminal jury instruction supported the inference that the defendant would be freed before he served the full term of any sentence imposed.”
Parker v. State, 2021 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “2 Under 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1, Parker must serve 85% of his sentence of imprisonment before he is eligible for parole consideration.”
Bever v. State, 2020 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “7, referred to as the "Forgotten Man Act", the Legislature has enacted procedures to ensure that inmates, other than those serving a life sentence without parole, shall be eligible for consideration for parole.”
Brink v. State, 2021 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(5). 2 Title 21 O.”
Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Bramlett is, as the State concedes, correct. This was a misstatement of the law because Bramlett would be required to serve 85% of a life sentence before he would be "eligible for consideration for parole.”
Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “21 O.S.2011, § 13.1. 3 Donnie Parton is occasionally referenced in the record by his nickname, "DJ" (Tr.”
Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “21 O.S.2011, § 13.1. Appellant's jury was correctly instructed that "If a person is sentenced to life imprisonment, the calculation of eligibility for parole is based upon a term of forty-five (45) years.”
Gordon v. State, 2019 OK CR 24 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1. The trial court granted Appellant's demurrer to Count 2, Second Degree Rape, at the conclusion of the State's case.”
Florez v. State, 2010 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “¶ 4 Florez's crime is subject to the 85% Rule, 21 O.S.Supp.2007, § 13.1. The jury was correctly instructed under OUJI-CR 2d 10-13B: A person convicted of Assault and Battery with Force Likely to Produce Death shall be required to serve not less than eighty-five percent (85%) of…”
Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “The jury was also instructed to consider the lesser included offenses of second degree felony murder in the commission of feloniously pointing a firearm, and first degree manslaughter in the commission of misdemeanor reckless conduct with a firearm.”
Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Because Mitchell has not shown that error, plain or otherwise, occurred, this claim is rejected. 6. Jury Selection ¶ 26 Mitchell contends that the district court erred when it failed sua sponte to remove prospective jurors M.”
Ferguson v. State, 2006 OK CR 36 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “¶ 2 In Proposition 1, Petitioner claims that his negotiated nolo contendere plea was involuntary because he was not aware, when he entered the plea, that he would be required by law to serve at least 85% of the agreed-upon sentence without any possibility *219 of parole.…”
Show all 160 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1(1) — 6 cases
Bever v. State, 2020 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020). “7, referred to as the "Forgotten Man Act", the Legislature has enacted procedures to ensure that inmates, other than those serving a life sentence without parole, shall be eligible for consideration for parole.”
Knapper v. State, 2020 OK CR 16 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020).
Simms v. State, 2021 OK CR 35 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
Jackson v. State, 2016 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
Taylor v. State, 2011 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1(10) — 3 cases
Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
Collins v. State, 2009 OK CR 32 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
Pullen v. State, 2016 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1(12) — 2 cases
Barnes v. State, 2017 OK CR 26 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017).
Barnes v. State, 2017 OK CR 26 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1(14) — 4 cases
Musonda v. State, 435 P.3d 694 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
Musonda v. State, 2019 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
Faulkner v. State, 2011 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
Griffith v. Whitten (W.D. Okla. 2020).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1(15) — 1 case
Revilla v. State, 2019 OK CR 30 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1(18) — 8 cases
Reed v. State, 2016 OK CR 10 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
Arganbright v. State, 2014 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014).
Washburne v. State, 2024 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2024).
Hamilton v. State, 2020 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020).
Detar v. State, 489 P.3d 70 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1(2) — 3 cases
Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “The jury was also instructed to consider the lesser included offenses of second degree felony murder in the commission of feloniously pointing a firearm, and first degree manslaughter in the commission of misdemeanor reckless conduct with a firearm.”
Barnett v. State, 2011 OK CR 28 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1(5) — 2 cases
Brink v. State, 2021 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021). “21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(5). 2 Title 21 O.”
Jackson v. State, 2024 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2024).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1(8) — 1 case
Shaw v. State, 2021 OK CR 33 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 13.1(9) — 2 cases
Lavorchek v. State, 2019 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
Lavorchek v. State, 443 P.3d 573 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
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.