Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1088.1 (2026)

Post-conviction relief applications - Reasonable

✓ current as of July 2026

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

inquiry - Sanctions.

A. By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating, a pleading, written motion or other papers regarding an application for post-conviction relief an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: 1. It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; 2. The claims and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; and 3. The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. B. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the Court of Criminal Appeals determines that this section has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated this section. The Court of Criminal Appeals may adopt and publish rules to implement this section. Added by Laws 1995, c. 256, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 1995.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1996–2007 · leading case: Anderson v. Sirmons, 476 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Anderson v. Sirmons, 476 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2007). “Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1088.1 (A) (providing that by "signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating” an application for post-conviction relief, an attorney is certifying that "to the best of the [attorney’s] knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry…”

Hatch v. State, 924 P.2d 284 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Further, the affidavit is necessary to comply with 22 O.S.Supp.1995, § 1088.1. Here, Petitioner has failed to include such an affidavit in support of his Brady accusations.”

Mayes v. State, 921 P.2d 367 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “See 22 O.S.Supp. 1995, §§ 1088.1, 1089; 22 O.”

Carter v. State, 936 P.2d 342 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “See 22 O.S.Supp.1995, §§ 1088.1, 1089; 22 O.S.”

Hale v. State, 934 P.2d 1100 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “See 22 O.S.Supp.1995, §§ 1088.1, 1089; 22 O.S.”

Revilla v. State, 946 P.2d 262 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “See 22 O.S.Supp.1995, §§ 1088.1, 1089; 22 O.S.”

Plantz v. State, 936 P.2d 339 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “See 22 O.S.Supp.1995, §§ 1088.1, 1089; 22 O.S.”

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.