Okla. Stat. » Title 22 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1053 (2026)

Appeals taken by state or municipality – Allowable cases

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeals may be taken by the state or a municipality in the following cases only: 1. Upon judgment for the defendant on quashing or setting aside an indictment or information; 2. Upon an order of the court arresting the judgment; 3. Upon a question reserved by the state or a municipality; 4. Upon judgment for the defendant on a motion to quash for insufficient evidence in a felony matter; 5. Upon a pretrial order, decision, or judgment suppressing or excluding evidence where appellate review of the issue would be in the best interests of justice; 6. Upon a pretrial order, decision or judgment suppressing or excluding evidence in cases alleging violation of any provisions of Section 13.1 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and 7. Upon an order, decision or judgment finding that a defendant is immune from or not subject to criminal prosecution. Priority shall be given to appeals taken pursuant to paragraph 5, 6, or 7 of this section, and an order staying proceedings shall be entered pending the outcome of the appeal. R.L. 1910, § 5990. Amended by Laws 1978, c. 248, § 2, eff. July 1, 1978; Laws 1990, c. 261, § 3, emerg. eff. May 24, 1990; Laws 2002, c. 460, § 21, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2009, c. 274, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2009; Laws 2022, c. 209, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2022.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 155 cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: State v. Ward, 2022 OK CR 16 (Okla. Crim. App. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ward, 2022 OK CR 16 (Okla. Crim. App. 2022). · cites it 8× “¶2 The State timely sought review of the ruling as an order quashing or setting aside the information appealable by 22 O.S.2021, section 1053(1), or a question of law reserved under 22 O.”
State v. Gilchrist, 2017 OK CR 25 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “In appeals brought to this Court pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1053, this Court reviews the trial court's decision to determine if the trial court abused its discretion.”
Mcneely v. State, 2018 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “In fact, this Court has previously allowed the State to appeal a pretrial decision granting Stand Your Ground immunity in two different ways.”
v. Thompson, 2021 CO 15 (Colo. 2021). “50 (1) (McKinney 2020) (interlocutory appeal allowed if the prosecution files a statement asserting that, without the suppressed evidence, “any reasonable possibility of prosecuting such charge to a conviction has been effectively destroyed”); Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1053 (5)…”
State v. Hammond, 775 P.2d 826 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “We do not reach the merits of this case as the appeal must be dismissed insofar as it does not fall within the state appeals authorized by 22 O.S.1981, § 1053. A brief summary of the procedural history is necessary.”
State v. Delso, 298 P.3d 1192 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “In appeals brought to this Court pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1053, this Court reviews the trial court’s decision to determine if the trial court abused its discretion.”
State v. Strawn, 2018 OK CR 2 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(5). For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the district court's ruling and remand for further proceedings.”
State v. Love, 2004 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “¶ 1 I concur in the decision and analysis concerning whether uniformed officers can use unmarked cars, equipped with combinations of flashing lights, to make routine traffic stops.”
State v. Tubby, 2016 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The jury acquitted Appellees of First Degree Felony Murder and convicted them of Accessory to First Degree Felony Murder. Appellees did not appeal and their convictions have become final.”
State v. Durham, 545 P.2d 805 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “On March 24, 1975, the trial court entered its final order of dismissal of the case and discharging the defendant, referring therein to its said order of October 3, 1974. It is from this final order that this appeal has been taken and lodged herein and is basically on appeal by…”
State, Ex Rel. Lane v. Bass, 2004 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “In doing so, I believe the Court misuses the provisions of 22 O.S.2001, § 1053 to create an interlocutory appeal of an issue that will ultimately require review by this Court during the direct appeal of the case, should a verdict of guilt be entered.”
State v. Marcum, 319 P.3d 681 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “The State timely appealed that order as to Marcum and Miller under 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(5), in this Court, Case No.”
Show all 155 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1053(1) — 9 cases
State v. Ward, 2022 OK CR 16 (Okla. Crim. App. 2022). “¶2 The State timely sought review of the ruling as an order quashing or setting aside the information appealable by 22 O.S.2021, section 1053(1), or a question of law reserved under 22 O.”
State v. Hammond, 775 P.2d 826 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “We do not reach the merits of this case as the appeal must be dismissed insofar as it does not fall within the state appeals authorized by 22 O.S.1981, § 1053. A brief summary of the procedural history is necessary.”
State, Ex Rel. Lane v. Bass, 2004 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004). “In doing so, I believe the Court misuses the provisions of 22 O.S.2001, § 1053 to create an interlocutory appeal of an issue that will ultimately require review by this Court during the direct appeal of the case, should a verdict of guilt be entered.”
State v. Hall, 2008 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008).
Franks v. State, 140 P.3d 557 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1053(2) — 1 case
State v. Cox, 575 P.2d 121 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1053(3) — 19 cases
State v. Ward, 2022 OK CR 16 (Okla. Crim. App. 2022). “¶2 The State timely sought review of the ruling as an order quashing or setting aside the information appealable by 22 O.S.2021, section 1053(1), or a question of law reserved under 22 O.”
State v. Tubby, 2016 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). “The jury acquitted Appellees of First Degree Felony Murder and convicted them of Accessory to First Degree Felony Murder. Appellees did not appeal and their convictions have become final.”
Mcneely v. State, 2018 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “In fact, this Court has previously allowed the State to appeal a pretrial decision granting Stand Your Ground immunity in two different ways.”
State v. Love, 2004 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004). “¶ 1 I concur in the decision and analysis concerning whether uniformed officers can use unmarked cars, equipped with combinations of flashing lights, to make routine traffic stops.”
State v. Anderson, 1998 OK CR 67 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1053(4) — 12 cases
State v. Gilchrist, 2017 OK CR 25 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017). “In appeals brought to this Court pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1053, this Court reviews the trial court's decision to determine if the trial court abused its discretion.”
Mcneely v. State, 2018 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “In fact, this Court has previously allowed the State to appeal a pretrial decision granting Stand Your Ground immunity in two different ways.”
State v. Delso, 298 P.3d 1192 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013). “In appeals brought to this Court pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1053, this Court reviews the trial court’s decision to determine if the trial court abused its discretion.”
State v. Allen, 2021 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
State v. Davis, 823 P.2d 367 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1053(5) — 32 cases
State v. Strawn, 2018 OK CR 2 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(5). For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the district court's ruling and remand for further proceedings.”
State v. Marcum, 319 P.3d 681 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014). “The State timely appealed that order as to Marcum and Miller under 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(5), in this Court, Case No.”
State v. Goins, 2004 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004).
State v. Thomas, 2014 OK CR 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014).
State v. Keefe, 2017 OK CR 3 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1053(6) — 2 cases
State v. Wallace, 442 P.3d 175 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
State v. Wallace, 2019 OK CR 10 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1053(7) — 1 case
State v. Bradford, 2024 OK CR 3 (Okla. Crim. App. 2024).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1053(8) — 1 case
State v. Hammond, 775 P.2d 826 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “We do not reach the merits of this case as the appeal must be dismissed insofar as it does not fall within the state appeals authorized by 22 O.S.1981, § 1053. A brief summary of the procedural history is necessary.”
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.