A. Every person who, with intent to defraud, utters or publishes as true any forged, altered or counterfeited instrument or any counterfeit gold or silver coin, the forging, altering or counterfeiting of which has previously been declared to be punishable, knowing such instrument or coin to be forged, altered or counterfeited, is punishable as follows: 1. If the value of the instrument is less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), the person shall be guilty of forgery as a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not to
exceed one (1) year, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine; 2. If the value of the instrument is One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or more but less than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00), the person shall be guilty of forgery, a Class D3 felony offense, punishable by imprisonment as provided for in subsections B through F of Section 20P of this title, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine; 3. If the value of the instrument is Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) or more but less than Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), the person shall be guilty of forgery, a Class D1 felony offense, punishable by imprisonment as provided for in subsections B through F of Section 20N of this title, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine; and 4. If the value of the instrument is Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) or more, the person shall be guilty of forgery, a Class C2 felony offense, punishable by imprisonment as provided for in subsections B through F of Section 20M of this title, or by a fine not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine. B. For purposes of this section, a series of offenses may be aggregated into one offense when they are the result of the formulation of a plan or scheme or the setting up of a mechanism which, when put into operation, results in the taking or diversion of money or property on a recurring basis. When all acts result from a continuing course of conduct, they may be aggregated into one crime. Acts forming an integral part of the first taking which facilitate subsequent takings, or acts taken in preparation of several takings which facilitate subsequent takings, are relevant to determine the intent of the party to commit a continuing crime. R.L. 1910, § 2645. Amended by Laws 2016, c. 221, § 14, eff. Nov. 1, 2016; Laws 2018, c. 116, § 9, eff. Nov. 1, 2018; Laws 2025, c. 486, § 243, eff. Jan. 1, 2026.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases, 1972–2006 · leading case:
Johnson v. State, 564 P.2d 664 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
Johnson v. State, 564 P.2d 664 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
· cites it 3× “OPINION BLISS, Judge: Appellant, Aaron Samuel Johnson, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was conjointly charged with one Grady Harris for the offense of Uttering a Forged Instrument, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1592, in the District…”
Barnwell v. State, 567 So. 2d 215 (Miss. 1990).
“See, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21 § 1592 (West 1983).”
In Re the Reinstatement of Massey, 2006 OK 21 (Okla. 2006).
“Title 21 O.S.1991, § 1592, the forgery in the second degree statute to which he pled guilty, and was convicted and sentenced as to one charge, provides: Every person who, with intent to defraud, utters or publishes as true any forged, altered or counterfeited instrument or any…”
McDuffie v. State, 651 P.2d 1055 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).
“McDuffie, was tried and convicted before a jury in the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma for the offense of Uttering a Forged Instrument, After Former Convictions of Felonies pursuant to 21 O.S.1981, § 1592, Case No. CRF-80-169.”
Dangerfield v. State, 742 P.2d 573 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“1981, § 1577 rather than 21 O.S.1981, § 1592. In support of this contention he cites Johnson v.”
Starr v. State, 602 P.2d 1046 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979).
“However, 21 O.S.1971, § 1592, under which the appellant was convicted, requires the specific intent to defraud.”
Allison v. State, 562 P.2d 883 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
“CRF-74-443, for the offense of Uttering a Forged Instrument, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1592. His punishment was fixed at a term of ten (10) years’ imprisonment, said sentence being suspended.”
Lewis v. State, 574 P.2d 1063 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978).
“CRF-76-26, with the offense of Uttering a Forged Instrument, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of *1065 21 O.S.1971, § 1592. He was tried by a jury, convicted, and sentenced to the State penitentiary for a term of ten (10) years.”
State v. Gates, 576 P.2d 313 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978).
“Appellee, Ronald Dale Gates, also known as Ronald Dale Fultz, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged with the offense of Uttering a Forged Instrument, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1592, in the District Court, Payne County, Case No.”
Vanderpool v. State, 501 P.2d 871 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972).
“The sentence is therefore modified to a term of seven (7) years, 21 O.S.1971 §§ 1592, 1621, and as so modified, the judgment and sentence is hereby affirmed.”
Lewis v. State, 739 P.2d 534 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“Under 21 O.S.1981, § 1592, the State must prove that the appellant either offered for acceptance a forged instrument with an intent to defraud or aided and abetted another in such attempt, 21 O.”
McMullen v. State, 548 P.2d 652 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976).
“CRF-74-2332, for the offense of Uttering a Forged Instrument, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1592. His punishment was fixed at a term of fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment, and from said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected…”
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.