Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1 (2026)

Second and subsequent offenses after conviction of

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

felony. A. Except as otherwise provided in the Elderly and Incapacitated Victim's Protection Program and Section 51.1a of this title, every person who, having been convicted of any felony, commits any crime after such conviction, within ten (10) years of the date following the completion of the execution of the sentence, and against whom the district attorney seeks to enhance punishment pursuant to this section of law, is punishable therefor as follows: 1. If the offense for which the person is subsequently convicted is an offense enumerated in Section 571 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes and the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term exceeding five (5) years, such person is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term in the range of ten (10) years to life imprisonment; 2. If the offense of which such person is subsequently convicted is such that upon a first conviction an offender would be punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for any term exceeding five (5) years, such person is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term in the range of twice the minimum term for a first time offender to life imprisonment. If the subsequent felony offense does not carry a minimum sentence as a first time offender, such person is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term in the range of two (2) years to life imprisonment; and 3. If such subsequent offense is such that upon a first conviction the offender would be punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for five (5) years, or any less term, then the person convicted of such subsequent offense is

punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not exceeding ten (10) years. B. Every person who, having been twice convicted of felony offenses, commits a subsequent felony offense which is an offense enumerated in Section 571 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes, within ten (10) years of the date following the completion of the execution of the sentence, and against whom the district attorney seeks to enhance punishment pursuant to this section of law, is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term in the range of twenty (20) years to life imprisonment. Felony offenses relied upon shall not have arisen out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of events closely related in time and location. Nothing in this section shall abrogate or affect the punishment by death in all crimes now or hereafter made punishable by death. C. Every person who, having been twice convicted of felony offenses, commits a subsequent felony offense within ten (10) years of the date following the completion of the execution of the sentence, and against whom the district attorney seeks to enhance punishment pursuant to this section of law, is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term in the range of three times the minimum term for a first time offender to life imprisonment. If the subsequent felony offense does not carry a minimum sentence as a first time offender, the person is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term in the range of four (4) years to life imprisonment. Felony offenses relied upon shall not have arisen out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of events closely related in time and location. Nothing in this section shall abrogate or affect the punishment by death in all crimes now or hereafter made punishable by death. D. A previous conviction for possession of a controlled dangerous substance pursuant to Section 2-402 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or the equivalent law for possession of a controlled dangerous substance from any other jurisdiction, may not be used to enhance punishment pursuant to this section of law. E. Every person who, having previously been convicted of a felony other than a felony enumerated in Section 571 of Title 57 of the Oklahoma Statutes, is convicted of a second or subsequent felony for: 1. Uttering a subscription on instrument as that of one with the same name, as provided in Section 1592 of this title; 2. Receiving or concealing stolen property, as provided in Section 1713 of this title; 3. False personation of another, as provided in Section 1531 of this title;

4. Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, as provided in Section 4-102 of Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes; 5. Grand larceny, as provided in Section 1705 of this title; 6. False declaration of ownership to a pawnbroker, as provided in Section 1512 of Title 59 of the Oklahoma Statutes; 7. Forgery in the second degree, as provided in Section 1577 of this title; 8. Receiving, possessing or concealing a stolen vehicle, as provided in Section 4-103 of Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes; or 9. Larceny of merchandise from a retailer, as provided in Section 1731 of this title, is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of not more than twice the maximum sentence that could have been imposed for a first conviction of the current offense. Added by Laws 1999, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 5, § 434, eff. July 1, 1999. Amended by Laws 2001, c. 437, § 3, eff. July 1, 2001; Laws 2002, c. 455, § 1, emerg. eff. June 5, 2002; Laws 2018, c. 126, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2018.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1 (B) (“Every person who, having been twice convicted of felony offenses, commits a subsequent felony offense .”

Lewallen v. State, 2016 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “The jury was incorrectly instructed pursuant to 21 O.S.2011, § 51.1(B) that the range of punishment was 20 years to life imprisonment.”

McGee v. Higgins, 568 F.3d 832 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “McGee’s sentences under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1 . At the time the Supplemental Information was filed in February 2001, § 51.”

Bivens v. State, 2018 OK CR 33 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “¶15 While Appellant had both drug related and non-drug related prior convictions, the record indicates the State relied on all six prior convictions to enhance his sentence under the provisions of the Habitual Offender Act, 21 O.S.2011, § 51.1. See Jones v. State , 1990 OK CR 17…”

Mahdavi v. State, 2020 OK CR 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “21 O.S.Supp.2018, § 51.1. This is true of other, more specialized enhancement statutes as well.”

Hammick v. State, 2019 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “2d 908 (1964)(establishing a defendant's right to a hearing on the voluntariness of his confession).”

Watts v. State, 2008 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “2003, § 2-401(D)(1) provides that a second or subsequent violation of the statute is punishable under the habitual offender statute, 21 O.S.Supp.2003, § 51.1, amounting to twice the minimum at least, or a range of four (4) years imprisonment to life.”

People v. Gardner, 753 N.W.2d 78 (Mich. 2008). “" (emphasis added)); 21 Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1 (B) ("Felony offenses relied upon shall not have arisen out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of events closely related in time and location.”

Gipson v. Jordan, 376 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2004). “(Jury Instructions at 12); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1 (B) (habitual offender *1195 provision).”

Porter v. Allbaugh, 672 F. App'x 851 (10th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Notably, Section 21(E) carries a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, while Section 21(B) provides for an imprisonment range of not less than five years nor more than twenty years and triggers the sentence-enhancement provisions of Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 51.1 (A)…”

Williams v. State, 2002 OK CR 39 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp.2000, § 51.1(B). See Gilson v.”

Marshall v. State, 2010 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010). “¶ 54 Appellant alleges in his sixth proposition of error that the trial court abused its discretion by not sua sponte instructing the jury to sentence Appellant in the first stage of trial for the first degree murder conviction. The record shows Appellant was convicted of first…”

Show all 64 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1(A) — 4 cases

Tucker v. State, 2016 OK CR 29 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).

Townsend v. State, 2006 OK CR 39 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).

Platt v. State, 2008 OK CR 20 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008).

Tucker v. State, 2016 OK CR 29 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1(A)(1) — 2 cases

Kelley v. State, 2019 OK CR 25 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).

Tucker v. State, 2016 OK CR 29 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1(A)(2) — 1 case

Watts v. State, 2008 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008). “2003, § 2-401(D)(1) provides that a second or subsequent violation of the statute is punishable under the habitual offender statute, 21 O.S.Supp.2003, § 51.1, amounting to twice the minimum at least, or a range of four (4) years imprisonment to life.”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1(A)(3) — 1 case

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1(A)(8) — 1 case

Watts v. State, 2008 OK CR 28 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1(B) — 9 cases

Lewallen v. State, 2016 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). “The jury was incorrectly instructed pursuant to 21 O.S.2011, § 51.1(B) that the range of punishment was 20 years to life imprisonment.”

Hammick v. State, 2019 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). “2d 908 (1964)(establishing a defendant's right to a hearing on the voluntariness of his confession).”

Kinchion v. State, 2003 OK CR 28 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003).

Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 32 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).

Williams v. State, 2002 OK CR 39 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). “Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp.2000, § 51.1(B). See Gilson v.”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51.1(C) — 8 cases

Bivens v. State, 2018 OK CR 33 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “¶15 While Appellant had both drug related and non-drug related prior convictions, the record indicates the State relied on all six prior convictions to enhance his sentence under the provisions of the Habitual Offender Act, 21 O.S.2011, § 51.1. See Jones v. State , 1990 OK CR 17…”

Frazier v. State, 2020 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020).

Williams v. State, 2002 OK CR 39 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). “Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp.2000, § 51.1(B). See Gilson v.”

Lewallen v. State, 2016 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). “The jury was incorrectly instructed pursuant to 21 O.S.2011, § 51.1(B) that the range of punishment was 20 years to life imprisonment.”

Quillen v. State, 2007 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).

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.