Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 54 (2026)
When first conviction was foreign
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Every person who has been convicted in any other state, government or country of an offense which, if committed within this state, would be punishable by the laws of this state by imprisonment in the penitentiary, is punishable for any subsequent crime committed within this state, in the manner prescribed in Section 434, 435 or 436 of this act, and to the same extent as if such first conviction had taken place in a court of this state. R.L. 1910, § 2808. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 15, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 6, eff. July 1, 1999. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 15 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1958–2004 · leading case: Collums v. State, 654 P.2d 1070 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).
Collums v. State, 654 P.2d 1070 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982). “Collums concludes that under Title 21 O.S.1981, § 54 the Texas conviction could not be used to enhance punishment.”
Lee v. State, 576 P.2d 770 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978). “” Title 21 O.S.1971, § 54 provides: “Every person who has been convicted in any other State, government or country of an offense which, if committed within this State, would be punishable by the laws of this State by imprisonment in the penitentiary, is punishable for any…”
Clonce v. State, 588 P.2d 584 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978). “In Fischer we held that under 21 O.S.1971, § 54, a foreign conviction could be used to enhance punishment under the Oklahoma Subsequent Offender’s Statute if the foreign offense would be a penitentiary offense under Oklahoma law.”
Ives v. Boone, 101 F. App'x 274 (10th Cir. 2004). “Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 54 (2002). When analyzing whether a foreign conviction can be used to enhance a defendant’s minimum sentence, Oklahoma courts ask “whether the allegation in the [foreign] indictment .”
Webb v. State, 732 P.2d 478 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “21 O.S.1981, § 54. The federal statute appellant was convicted of violating is 18 U.”
Lewis v. State, 493 P.2d 91 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971). “1961, Section 1437, in this State and should not have been used to enhance his punishment as a felony under 21 O.S.1961, Section 54. This argument contains merit, except that Thomas was later convicted in the District Court of Oklahoma County for escape, and was sentenced to…”
Fischer v. State, 483 P.2d 1162 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971). “1969, § 51, or 21 O.S.1961, § 54. The defendant next contends that the former conviction was used in another case to enhance punishment and to retry the defendant thereunder violates his rights as to double jeopardy, double prosecution and double punishment.”
Vassar v. State, 328 P.2d 445 (Okla. Crim. App. 1958). “” We conclude that the crime previously charged in the Federal Court was also a crime under State law, a felony, and is sufficient basis for the prosecution of subsequent *448 charge, as second offense, under the habitual criminal statute (21 O.S.1951 § 54). The remaining…”
Ives v. Boone, No. 02-6397 (10th Cir. May 3, 2004). “Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 54 (2002). When analyzing whether a foreign conviction can be used to enhance a defendant’s minimum sentence, Oklahoma courts ask “whether the allegation in the [foreign] indictment .”
Turnbow v. Powers, 620 P.2d 403 (Okla. 1980). “In looking to cases relating to process brought under 21 O.S.1971 § 54 which provides in essence that delaying or obstructing any public officer in the performance of his duty is a misdemeanor, we note that merely defeating or opposing process is not actionable.”
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.