Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51 (2026)

Repealed by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 602, eff. July 1, 1999

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 602 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 356 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case: Thigpen v. State, 571 P.2d 467 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Thigpen v. State, 571 P.2d 467 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977). · cites it 15× “Since the provisions of 21 O.S.Supp. 1976, § 51, contain a severability clause, our holding today in no way impairs the validity of 21 O.”

Walker v. State, 1998 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 16× “Over defense objection, the trial court used 21 O.S.1991, § 51 to enhance punishment and sentenced Walker to eight years imprisonment.”

Simmons v. State, 549 P.2d 111 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976). · cites it 10× “The defendant contends that the State alleged petit larceny as a felony on page 1 of the information based upon the fact that page 2 of the information alleges a prior felony conviction.”

Nipps v. State, 576 P.2d 310 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978). · cites it 12× “After instructions by the court to which the defendant objected, the jury returned a verdict under 21 O.S.Supp. 1976, § 51, ¶ B, of twenty-five (25) years' imprisonment.”

State of Iowa v. Charles James David Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa 2012). · cites it 2× “1 to 604) (mandating a sentence of twenty-five years to life for a second sexual assault against a child); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 51 .1a (West, Westlaw through ch.”

Simpson v. State, 827 P.2d 171 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). · cites it 7× “1981 , § 1435 and 21 O.S.Supp. 1988, § 51, in Case No. CRF-89-3123 in the District Court of Oklahoma County.”

Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “The *41 record also shows his sentences were enhanced under 21 O.S.1991, § 51(A), not 21 O.S.1991, § 51(B), and both sentences are within the statutory range of punishment.”

Mitchell v. State, 733 P.2d 412 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). · cites it 10× “1976): The question before us is whether the punishment for an offense committed under the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act may be enhanced pursuant to the provisions of 21 O.S. § 51 if the prior offense alleged in the information is a conviction not coming within the…”

Chapple v. State, 866 P.2d 1213 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “The plain language of the Habitual Criminal Act, 21 O.S.Supp. 1985, § 51, states any offense punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary can be used to enhance punishment.”

Snyder v. State, 806 P.2d 652 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 10× “1983, § 1283; 21 O.S.Supp.1985, § 51. He was sentenced to twenty (20) years imprisonment, and appeals.”

Paxton v. State, 867 P.2d 1309 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See 21 O.S.1981, § 51. Enhancement of punishment is limited to cases where the State has proven that the defendant has previous final convictions.”

Joseph Arthur Carbray v. Ron Champion, Warden, 905 F.2d 314 (10th Cir. 1990). · cites it 4× “See Historical Note to Okla. Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 51 (1981). The former section 51, now codified as section 51(A), establishes a ten-year minimum sentence for a defendant convicted of at least one prior felony.”

Show all 356 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(1) — 2 cases

McKee v. State, 576 P.2d 302 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978).

Smith v. State, 347 P.2d 232 (Okla. Crim. App. 1959).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(2) — 1 case

Reed v. State, 580 P.2d 159 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(A) — 21 cases

Thigpen v. State, 571 P.2d 467 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977). “Since the provisions of 21 O.S.Supp. 1976, § 51, contain a severability clause, our holding today in no way impairs the validity of 21 O.”

Young v. State, 2000 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). “The *41 record also shows his sentences were enhanced under 21 O.S.1991, § 51(A), not 21 O.S.1991, § 51(B), and both sentences are within the statutory range of punishment.”

Goodwin v. State, 730 P.2d 1202 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).

Bear v. State, 762 P.2d 950 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).

Nipps v. State, 626 P.2d 1349 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(A)(1) — 10 cases

Walker v. State, 1998 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). “Over defense objection, the trial court used 21 O.S.1991, § 51 to enhance punishment and sentenced Walker to eight years imprisonment.”

Chapple v. State, 866 P.2d 1213 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “The plain language of the Habitual Criminal Act, 21 O.S.Supp. 1985, § 51, states any offense punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary can be used to enhance punishment.”

Pearson v. State, 632 P.2d 765 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).

Joseph Arthur Carbray v. Ron Champion, Warden, 905 F.2d 314 (10th Cir. 1990). “See Historical Note to Okla. Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 51 (1981). The former section 51, now codified as section 51(A), establishes a ten-year minimum sentence for a defendant convicted of at least one prior felony.”

Cardenas v. State, 695 P.2d 876 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(A)(2) — 5 cases

Pearson v. State, 632 P.2d 765 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).

Stover v. State, 674 P.2d 566 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).

Mason v. State, 756 P.2d 612 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).

Clark v. State, 664 P.2d 1065 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).

Jackson v. State, 719 P.2d 1294 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(A)(3) — 1 case

Horton v. State, 728 P.2d 1376 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(AX2) — 1 case

Nipps v. State, 626 P.2d 1349 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(B) — 101 cases

Walker v. State, 1998 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). “Over defense objection, the trial court used 21 O.S.1991, § 51 to enhance punishment and sentenced Walker to eight years imprisonment.”

Mitchell v. State, 733 P.2d 412 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “1976): The question before us is whether the punishment for an offense committed under the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act may be enhanced pursuant to the provisions of 21 O.S. § 51 if the prior offense alleged in the information is a conviction not coming within the…”

Browning v. State, 648 P.2d 1261 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).

Thomas v. State, 675 P.2d 1016 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 51(b) — 2 cases

Simpson v. State, 827 P.2d 171 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). “1981 , § 1435 and 21 O.S.Supp. 1988, § 51, in Case No. CRF-89-3123 in the District Court of Oklahoma County.”

Martin v. Gibson (10th Cir. 1999).

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.