when new trial granted. The appellate court may reverse, affirm or modify the judgment or sentence appealed from, and may, if necessary or proper, order a new trial or resentencing. In either case, the cause must be remanded to the court below, with proper instructions, and the opinion of the court, within the time, and in the manner, to be prescribed by rule of the court. If the case is reversed for a new trial, the clerk of the court from which such cause was appealed is required to make return showing that said case was specifically called to the attention of the trial court at the time of the setting of the docket following receipt of mandate, and showing the court's action in placing said cause on the docket for trial, said return to be made immediately
after the trial and entry of judgment, or earlier disposal. Should the case not be retried and should it be dismissed by the court, return shall be made, giving the reasons stated by the court in his minutes justifying such dismissal. Amended by Laws 1990, c. 261, § 2, emerg. eff. May 24, 1990.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
85
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1954–2023 · leading case:
Brink v. State, 2021 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
Brink v. State, 2021 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
· cites it 9× “See 22 O.S.2011, § 1066. ¶10 We turn next to Appellant's double punishment challenge to his Count 5 conviction.”
Williams v. Jones, 571 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 4× “9 ; see also Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1066 . Mr. Williams unsuccessfully sought habeas relief in federal district court, contending that the remedy for the ineffective assistance of counsel was inadequate.”
Lambert v. State, 2003 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “" However, the Court's predetermination in this case that "if the jurors determine Lambert is mentally retarded, .”
Anderson v. Mullin, 327 F.3d 1148 (10th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Okla Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1066. Here, having found the evidence insufficient to support conviction on the greater offense but sufficient to support conviction for the lesser included offense, section 1066 authorized the OCCA to reverse petitioner’s conviction for first degree…”
Johnson v. State, 665 P.2d 815 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “This Court’s powers to correct error are enumerated in 22 O.S.1971, § 1066. This statute provides “[t]he Appellate Court may reverse, affirm or modify the judgment appealed from, and may, if necessary or proper, order a new trial.”
Salazar v. State, 919 P.2d 1120 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “22 O.S.1991, § 1066. We are hesitant to remand this case since errors continue to arise which require reversal and the victim's family must relive this gruesome crime at each sentencing hearing.”
McArthur v. State, 862 P.2d 482 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “This Court has the power under 22 O.S.Supp. 1990, § 1066, to reverse, affirm, or modify appellant's judgment and sentence.”
Metoyer v. State, 2022 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “2021, § 994 See also 22 O.S.2021, § 1066 Borden v. State , 1985 OK CR 151 710 P.”
Lambert v. State, 1999 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Likewise, 22 O.S.1991, § 1066 empowers this Court to do exactly what we did in Lambert I, and the underlying felony may be vacated.”
Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001).
“[3] "The appellate court may reverse, affirm or modify the judgment or sentence appealed from, and may, if necessary or proper, order a new trial or resentencing. In either case, the cause must be remanded to the court below, with proper instructions, and the opinion of the…”
Perryman v. State, 1999 OK CR 39 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “As such, we find the appropriate remedy is to modify Appellant's sentence for first degree arson from thirty-five years imprisonment to twenty-five years imprisonment and his sentence for larceny from twenty years imprisonment to ten years imprisonment.”
Cooper v. State, 810 P.2d 1303 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp. 1990, § 1066, see also Scott v.”
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.