Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13 (2026)

Death penalty - Review of sentence

✓ current as of July 2026

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

A. Whenever the death penalty is imposed, and upon the judgment becoming final in the trial court, the sentence shall be reviewed on the record by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The court reporter of the trial court shall prepare all transcripts necessary for appeal within six (6) months of the imposition of the sentence. The clerk of the trial court, within ten (10) days after receiving the transcript, shall transmit the entire record and transcript to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals together with a notice prepared by the clerk and a report prepared by the trial judge. The notice shall set forth the title and docket number of the case, the name of the defendant and the name and address of his attorney, a narrative statement of the judgment, the offense, and the punishment prescribed. The report shall be in the form of a standard questionnaire prepared and supplied by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. B. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals shall consider the punishment as well as any errors enumerated by way of appeal. C. With regard to the sentence, the court shall determine: 1. Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor; and 2. Whether the evidence supports the jury's or judge's finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in Section 701.12 of this title. D. Both the defendant and the state shall have the right to submit briefs within the time provided by the court, and to present oral argument to the court. The defendant shall have one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of receipt by the court of the record, transcript notice, and report provided for in subsection A of this section, in which to submit a brief. The state shall have sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the defendant's brief to file a reply brief. The defendant may file a reply brief within a time period established by the court, however the receipt of the reply brief, the hearing of oral arguments, and the rendering of a decision by the court all shall be concluded within one (1) year after the date of the filing of the reply brief. If the defendant

or the state fails to submit their respective briefs within the period prescribed by law, the defendant or the state shall transmit a written statement of explanation to the Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals who shall have the authority to grant an extension of the time to submit briefs, based upon a showing of just cause. Failure to submit briefs in the required time may be punishable as indirect contempt of court. E. In addition to its authority regarding correction of errors, the court, with regard to review of death sentences, shall be authorized to: 1. Affirm the sentence of death; or 2. Set the sentence aside and remand the case for resentencing by the trial court. F. The sentence review shall be in addition to direct appeal, if taken, and the review and appeal shall be consolidated for consideration. The court shall render its decision on legal errors enumerated, the factual substantiation of the verdict, and the validity of the sentence. G. If the court reporter of the trial court fails to complete preparation of the transcripts necessary for appeal within the six- month period required by the provisions of subsection A of this section, the court reporter shall transmit a written statement of explanation of such failure to the Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Administrative Director of the Courts. The Court of Criminal Appeals shall have the authority to grant an extension of the time for filing the transcripts, based upon a showing of just cause. Failure to complete the transcripts in the required time may be punishable as indirect contempt of court and except for just cause shown may result in revocation of the license of the court reporter. Added by Laws 1976, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 1, § 7, eff. July 24, 1976. Amended by Laws 1985, c. 265, § 1, emerg. eff. July 16, 1985.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 275 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “Title 21 O.S.2001, § 701.13 requires this Court to determine "[w]hether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; and whether the evidence supports the jury's or judge's finding of a statutory aggravating…”

Steven Keith Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995). · cites it 10× “” Based on these findings, Judge Chatman sentenced petitioner to death for both of the murders.”

Bosse v. State, 400 P.3d 834 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “In Propositions XI and XII we found the evidence was sufficient to support the aggravating circumstances that the murders were heinous, atrocious or cruel, and that they were committed in order to avoid arrest and prosecution for another crime.”

Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “¶ 137 In his fourteenth assignment of error, Appellant asserts his death sentence must be vacated under the Court's mandatory sentence review of 21 O.S.2001, § 701.13(C). Specifically, he argues his sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or arbitrary…”

Patton v. State, 1998 OK CR 66 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “¶ 117 Title 21 O.S.1991, § 701.13(A) provides that a report, in the form prescribed by this Court, prepared by the trial judge shall be sent to this Court together with all transcripts and records necessary for appeal.”

Clayton v. State, 840 P.2d 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). · cites it 7× “Specifically, he argues that when the Oklahoma Legislature amended 21 O.S.Supp. 1985, § 701.13, they failed to limit the resentencing function for a first degree murder conviction to the same jury that convicted the defendant.”

Boltz v. State, 806 P.2d 1117 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “I believe that the application of 21 O.S.Supp.1985, § 701.13(C), to cases pending on appeal at the time the statute was passed, as was the present case, renders the enactment an ex post facto law.”

Magnan v. State, 2009 OK CR 16 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “We consider whether this crime occurred in Indian Country and so is beyond the jurisdiction of the State of Oklahoma and we conduct our statutorily required sentence review under 21 O.”

Bench v. State, 2018 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “¶228 The State alleged and the jury found the presence of two aggravating circumstances: 1) the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and 2) the defendant posed a continuing threat to society. In Propositions VIII and IX, we determined that the State presented…”

VanWoundenberg v. State, 720 P.2d 328 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “We further find that the record supports the aggravating circumstances found by the jury, which were (1) that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious and cruel, (2) that the murder was committed while appellant was imprisoned on conviction of a felony (first degree murder…”

State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997). · cites it 2× “05(A); Oklahoma, Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13 (C)(3); Pennsylvania, 42 Pa.”

Paxton v. State, 867 P.2d 1309 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “Under 21 O.S.1981, § 701.13, this Court has the responsibility to review the entire record to determine whether the death penalty was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.”

Show all 275 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(A) — 5 cases

Patton v. State, 1998 OK CR 66 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). “¶ 117 Title 21 O.S.1991, § 701.13(A) provides that a report, in the form prescribed by this Court, prepared by the trial judge shall be sent to this Court together with all transcripts and records necessary for appeal.”

Toles v. State, 947 P.2d 180 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).

Steven Keith Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995). “” Based on these findings, Judge Chatman sentenced petitioner to death for both of the murders.”

Wallace v. State, 893 P.2d 504 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).

Bromley v. State, 757 P.2d 382 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(B) — 3 cases

Davis v. State, 665 P.2d 1186 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).

Allen v. State, 871 P.2d 79 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).

Bowen v. State, 715 P.2d 1093 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(C) — 179 cases

Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “¶ 137 In his fourteenth assignment of error, Appellant asserts his death sentence must be vacated under the Court's mandatory sentence review of 21 O.S.2001, § 701.13(C). Specifically, he argues his sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or arbitrary…”

Bosse v. State, 400 P.3d 834 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017). “In Propositions XI and XII we found the evidence was sufficient to support the aggravating circumstances that the murders were heinous, atrocious or cruel, and that they were committed in order to avoid arrest and prosecution for another crime.”

VanWoundenberg v. State, 720 P.2d 328 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “We further find that the record supports the aggravating circumstances found by the jury, which were (1) that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious and cruel, (2) that the murder was committed while appellant was imprisoned on conviction of a felony (first degree murder…”

Hung Thanh Le v. State, 947 P.2d 535 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(C)(1) — 23 cases

Malone v. State, 2007 OK CR 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).

Boltz v. State, 806 P.2d 1117 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “I believe that the application of 21 O.S.Supp.1985, § 701.13(C), to cases pending on appeal at the time the statute was passed, as was the present case, renders the enactment an ex post facto law.”

Moore v. State, 788 P.2d 387 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).

Mann v. State, 749 P.2d 1151 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).

Brown v. State, 753 P.2d 908 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(C)(2) — 6 cases

Malone v. State, 2007 OK CR 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).

Battenfield v. State, 816 P.2d 555 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).

Liles v. State, 702 P.2d 1025 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).

Stafford v. State, 665 P.2d 1205 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).

Grasso v. State, 857 P.2d 802 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(C)(3) — 9 cases

Steven Keith Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995). “” Based on these findings, Judge Chatman sentenced petitioner to death for both of the murders.”

Munn v. State, 658 P.2d 482 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).

Liles v. State, 702 P.2d 1025 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).

Cartwright v. Maynard, 822 F.2d 1477 (10th Cir. 1987).

Battenfield v. State, 816 P.2d 555 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(D) — 1 case

Eddings v. State, 681 P.2d 90 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(E) — 21 cases

Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “Title 21 O.S.2001, § 701.13 requires this Court to determine "[w]hether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; and whether the evidence supports the jury's or judge's finding of a statutory aggravating…”

Steven Keith Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995). “” Based on these findings, Judge Chatman sentenced petitioner to death for both of the murders.”

Johnson v. State, 665 P.2d 815 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).

Crawford v. State, 840 P.2d 627 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).

Sellers v. State, 809 P.2d 676 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(E)(2) — 11 cases

Cartwright v. State, 778 P.2d 479 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989).

Dutton v. Dixon, 757 P.2d 376 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).

Steven Keith Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995). “” Based on these findings, Judge Chatman sentenced petitioner to death for both of the murders.”

Long v. State, 883 P.2d 167 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).

Bromley v. State, 757 P.2d 382 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(F) — 9 cases

Malone v. State, 293 P.3d 198 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013).

Clayton v. State, 840 P.2d 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). “Specifically, he argues that when the Oklahoma Legislature amended 21 O.S.Supp. 1985, § 701.13, they failed to limit the resentencing function for a first degree murder conviction to the same jury that convicted the defendant.”

Bosse v. State, 2015 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2015).

Cartwright v. State, 778 P.2d 479 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(G) — 1 case

— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13(c)(1) — 1 case

Parker v. State, 887 P.2d 290 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).

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.