As used in Sections 1175.1 through 1176 of this title: 1. “Competent” or “competency” means the present ability of a person arrested for or charged with a crime to understand the nature of the charges and proceedings brought against him or her and to effectively and rationally assist in his or her defense; 2. “Criminal proceeding” means every stage of a criminal prosecution after arrest and before judgment, including, but not limited to, interrogation, lineup, preliminary hearing, motion dockets, discovery, pretrial hearings and trial; 3. “Dangerous” means a person who is a person requiring treatment as defined in Section 1-103 of Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes; 4. “Incompetent” or “incompetency” means the present inability of a person arrested for or charged with a crime to understand the nature of the charges and proceedings brought against him or her and to effectively and rationally assist in his or her defense; 5. “Public guardian” means the Office of Public Guardian as established under the Oklahoma Public Guardianship Act in Section 6- 101 et seq. of Title 30 of the Oklahoma Statutes; 6. “Qualified forensic examiner” means any: a. psychiatrist with forensic training and experience, b. psychologist with forensic training and experience, or c. a licensed mental health professional whose forensic training and experience enable him or her to form expert opinions regarding mental illness, competency and dangerousness and who has been approved to render such opinions by the court; provided, however, a licensed mental health professional shall not be qualified to issue expert opinions as to competency or dangerousness in cases in which a person is alleged to be incompetent due to intellectual disability; and 7. “Reasonable period of time” means a period not to exceed the lesser of: a. the maximum sentence specified for the most serious offense with which the defendant is charged, or b. a maximum period of two (2) years. Any time period where the defendant refuses medication prescribed or ordered that is designed to restore the defendant to
competency shall not be used in the calculation of a reasonable period of time. Added by Laws 1980, c. 336, § 1, emerg. eff. June 25, 1980. Amended by Laws 1992, c. 207, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1992; Laws 2000, c. 421, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2000; Laws 2004, c. 106, § 2, eff. April 1, 2005; Laws 2011, c. 294, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2011; Laws 2024, c. 73, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2024; Laws 2025, c. 364, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2025.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
49
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case:
Ochoa v. State, 1998 OK CR 41 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998).
Ochoa v. State, 1998 OK CR 41 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “[8] 22 O.S.Supp.1992, § 1175.1 (emphasis added).”
Marquez-Burrola v. State, 2007 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “¶ 15 The first three sub-arguments depend on Appellant's assumption that, if he had been found indigent, he was constitutionally entitled to state funds to conduct the very same inquiry that was made under Oklahoma's statutory competency-evaluation procedure (22 O.”
Ryder v. State, 2004 OK CR 2 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “¶40 After hearing oral argument in this case, this Court remanded the case to the District Court of Pittsburg County to determine whether it was feasible to conduct a retrospective hearing on Appellant’s competency at the time of trial pursuant to 22 O.S.2001, § 1175.1 etseq.…”
Cargle v. State, 909 P.2d 806 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “The statutes governing "competency" cover two requirements: a defendant must have sufficient ability to consult with an attorney; and the defendant must be able to understand the nature of the charges and proceedings being brought against him.”
Miller v. State, 751 P.2d 733 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “The appellant's first three assignments of error concern his competency hearing: first, that he was not competent to stand trial as defined by 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.1; second, that the court erred by failing to instruct the competency jury that the State has the burden of proving…”
Valdez v. State, 900 P.2d 363 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “PRETRIAL AND JURY SELECTION ISSUES Valdez argues in his first proposition that the Oklahoma statutory definition of competence found at 22 O.S.Supp. 1991, § 1175.1, is unconstitutional because it does not reflect the United States Supreme Court's definition of competence set…”
Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “22 O.S.Supp.2005, § 1175.1(1). These standards are consistent with federal constitutional requirements.”
Smith v. State, 932 P.2d 521 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Title 22 O.S.1991, § 1175.1 defines competency as "the present ability of a person arrested for or charged with a crime to understand the nature of the charges and proceedings brought against him, and to .”
Clayton v. State, 840 P.2d 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “See 22 O.S.Supp. 1985, § 1175.1, et seq. In an unpublished order dated July 23, 1990, this Court remanded this cause to the district court and directed it to forward proof, if any, that a proper hearing was held, along with findings of fact concerning appellant's competency to…”
Gilbert v. State, 951 P.2d 98 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Gilbert’s legal competency as defined in 22 O.S.1991, § 1175.1” and that Mr. Grisso’s testimony failed to “present any facts to raise a doubt in the Court’s mind as to Mr.”
Fisher v. State, 845 P.2d 1272 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Appellant has also filed a separate pleading with this Court in which he reasserts his evidentiary hearing request.”
Lambert v. State, 888 P.2d 494 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “This interpretation of 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.1 parrots the Supreme Court’s standards.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.1(1) — 10 cases
Grant v. State, 2009 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
“22 O.S.Supp.2005, § 1175.1(1). These standards are consistent with federal constitutional requirements.”
Gilbert v. State, 951 P.2d 98 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
“Gilbert’s legal competency as defined in 22 O.S.1991, § 1175.1” and that Mr. Grisso’s testimony failed to “present any facts to raise a doubt in the Court’s mind as to Mr.”
Miller v. State, 751 P.2d 733 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
“The appellant's first three assignments of error concern his competency hearing: first, that he was not competent to stand trial as defined by 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.1; second, that the court erred by failing to instruct the competency jury that the State has the burden of proving…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.1(3) — 3 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.