networks prohibited for certain purposes - Penalty. No person shall communicate with, store data in, or retrieve data from a computer system or computer network for the purpose of using such access to violate any of the provisions of the Oklahoma Statutes. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of 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 of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine. Added by Laws 1986, c. 26, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1986. Renumbered from § 1124 of this title by Laws 1989, c. 151, § 6, eff. Nov. 1, 1989. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 429, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 313, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2025, c. 486, § 465, eff. Jan. 1, 2026. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 429 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Ezell, 2020 OK 55, 466 P.3d 551.
· cites it 3× “2011, § 589, and (2) Use of a Computer to Violate Oklahoma Statutes in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1958. ¶2 On October 22, 2019, the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) notified the Court of Ezell's plea of guilty.”
Barnard v. State, 2012 OK CR 15, 290 P.3d 759.
“" Nevertheless, despite the amended charge, the Judgment and Sentence reflects a conviction for a violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2002, § 1958(A)(2). [ 41 Barnard requests that if his conviction on Count 2 is not reversed, that the Judgment and Sentence be corrected nune pro tune to…”
Davis v. State, 916 P.2d 251 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “51; and, Count V: Using a Computer to Violate Oklahoma Statutes in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 1958. The jury fixed punishment at five years imprisonment and a fine of $1,000.”
Gerhart v. State, 2015 OK CR 12, 360 P.3d 1194.
“Further, as the conviction under the Computer Crimes Act, 21 O.S.2011, § 1958, is dependent upon the use of a computer to violate the provisions of the Oklahoma Statutes, that conviction is also reversed with instructions to dismiss.”
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Wagner, 503 P.3d 1201 (Okla. 2022).
“2011, § 589 21 O.S.2011, § 1958 Id . 2020 OK 55 ¶32 In Ezell , the Court determined whether the lawyer's convictions demonstrated an "unfitness to practice law.”
State ex rel. MacY v. One (1) Pioneer CD-ROM Changer, 891 P.2d 600 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
“Davis was charged by Information with Distribution of Obscenity, Trafficking Obscenity, and Using a Computer to Violate 21 O.S.1991, § 1958. The trial judge presiding over the criminal case determined the CD ROM discs which were housed in the CD ROM disc changer contained…”
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Ezell, 2019 OK 71.
“On October 16, 2019, Julia Marie Ezell pled guilty to misdemeanor counts of 1) Use of a Computer to Violate Oklahoma Statutes in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1958, and 2) False Reports of a Crime in violation of 21 O.”
Gerhart v. State, 2015 OK CR 12.
· cites it 3× “No fine was recommended in Count II. It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals.”
West v. Bryant, No. 18-6059 (10th Cir. Feb. 7, 2019).
“West on one count of aggravated possession of child pornography (“Count One”), Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1040.12 (A), and one count of unlawful access to a computer to violate Oklahoma statutes, Okla.”
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Ezell, 2024 OK 81, 561 P.3d 82.
“2011, § 1958 ¶3 Complainant's application and Respondent's affidavit in support of resignation reflect the following: (1) Respondent was admitted to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association on September 26, 2006. On October 22, 2024--while the subject of an investigation into…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1958(A)(2): 1 case
Barnard v. State, 2012 OK CR 15, 290 P.3d 759.
“" Nevertheless, despite the amended charge, the Judgment and Sentence reflects a conviction for a violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2002, § 1958(A)(2). [ 41 Barnard requests that if his conviction on Count 2 is not reversed, that the Judgment and Sentence be corrected nune pro tune to…”
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.