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

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1084 (2026)

Evidentiary hearing - Findings of fact and conclusions of

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

law. If the application cannot be disposed of on the pleadings and record, or there exists a material issue of fact, the court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing at which time a record shall be made and preserved. The court may receive proof by affidavits, depositions, oral testimony, or other evidence and may order the applicant brought before it for the hearing. A judge should not preside at such a hearing if his testimony is material. The court

shall make specific findings of fact, and state expressly its conclusions of law, relating to each issue presented. This order is a final judgment. Laws 1970, c. 220, § 5, eff. July 1, 1970.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11, 422 P.3d 741.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11, 422 P.3d 741. “The State filed its answer brief on November 20, 2017.”
Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “21 In most cases it should be possible to make a determination on the pleadings, but if it is not then a hearing must be held, in accordance with 22 O.S.1971, § 1084. 22 For the above and foregoing reasons, this post-conviction proceeding is hereby REMANDED to the District Court…”
Payne v. Kerns, 2020 OK 31, 467 P.3d 659. “Title 22 O.S. 2011 §1084, requires a District Court to issue a "final judgment" in all post conviction proceedings.”
Coleman v. State, 693 P.2d 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984). “Moreover, the applicable statute, 22 O.S.1981, § 1084, states in pertinent part that: “.”
Fox v. State, 880 P.2d 383 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “Next, petitioner argues he was improperly denied an evidentiary hearing on the application for post-conviction relief. The Oklahoma legislature has provided an evidentiary hearing on an application for post-conviction relief shall .”
Johnson v. State, 823 P.2d 370 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). “The statutory section in question, 22 O.S.1981, § 1084, provides that an eviden-tiary hearing will only be required “if the application cannot be disposed of on the pleadings and record, or there exists a material issue of fact.”
Moore v. State, 889 P.2d 1253 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “22 O.S.1981, § 1084, Johnson, 823 P.2d at 373 .”
Hooks v. State, 902 P.2d 1120 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “22 O.S.1991, § 1084. 30 . See Smith v. State, 878 P.”
Woodruff v. State, 910 P.2d 348 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Title 22 O.S.Supp. 1995, § 1084, provides that an evidentiary hearing will only be required "if the application cannot be disposed of on the pleadings and record, or there exists a material issue of fact.”
Banks v. State, 810 P.2d 1286 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “The sole issue which properly remains before this Court is whether the trial court improperly denied the petitioner an evidentiary hearing on this application for post-conviction relief. The Oklahoma Legislature has provided that an evidentiary hearing on an application for…”
Trice v. State, 912 P.2d 349 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). “See 22 O.S.1991, § 1084 (“If the application [for post-conviction relief] cannot be disposed of on the pleadings and record, or there exists a material issue of fact, the court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing at which time a record shall be made and preserved.”
Mayes v. State, 921 P.2d 367 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “22 O.S.1991, § 1084. Here, we find nothing "which required proof not contained in those records" before the district court.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
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.