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

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 13 (2026)

Right to speedy trial, counsel and witnesses

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

In a criminal action the defendant is entitled: 1. To a speedy and public trial. 2. To be allowed counsel, as in civil actions, or to appear and defend in person and with counsel; and, 3. To produce witnesses on his behalf, and to be confronted with the witnesses against him in the presence of the court. R.L.1910, § 5547.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1954–2020 · leading case: Duckett v. State, 919 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Duckett v. State, 919 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “Title 22 O.S.1981, § 13(2): "To be allowed counsel, as in civil actions, to appear and defend in person and with counsel;" (emphasis added).”
Payne v. Kerns, 2020 OK 31, 467 P.3d 659. · cites it 2× “On November 5, 2019, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the Ottawa county case for failure to prosecute, pursuant to 22 O.S. 2011 §13. 24 He asserted the State's failure to diligently prosecute the misdemeanor Ottawa County case for over three months, despite the trial court's…”
Mitchell v. Ward, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (W.D. Okla. 1999). “Mitchell Had No Liberty Interest in or Right to Allocution: Mitchell relies on 22 O.S. § 13(2) in support of his claim that Oklahoma law gave him a right to allocution.”
Pickens v. State, 600 P.2d 356 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). “II, § 20, provides that the defendant shall have the right to be heard by himself and counsel, and under 22 O.S.1971, § 13, a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to “be allowed counsel, as in civil actions, or to appear and defend in person and with counsel; .”
Thompson v. State, 462 P.2d 299 (Okla. Crim. App. 1969). “Title 22 O.S.1961, § 13. However, when an accused is without the funds to secure counsel of his own selection, he must rely upon the counsel appointed by the court to represent him.”
Fowler v. State, 512 P.2d 238 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973). “Defendant argues that he sought to act as his own co-counsel for the compelling reasons that he was black and could detect racial prejudice on the part of prospective jurors and that he would effectively cross-examine witnesses since he was present with the others in the car and…”
Waterdown v. State, 798 P.2d 635 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “22 O.S.1981, § 13(2). Moreover, by this ruling today a trial court would not possess the power to allow a continuance absent an affidavit, regardless of events that may unfold at trial.”
Miles v. State, 268 P.2d 290 (Okla. Crim. App. 1954). “1921 [22 O.S.1951 § 13], among other things, provides that: ‘In a criminal action the defendant is entitled: * * * Third.”
State ex rel. Pitchford v. Dist. Court of the 24th Jud. Dist. of Oklahoma, 323 P.2d 993 (Okla. Crim. App. 1958). “At hearing it was argued by the State that it had information that witnesses other than those it was able to produce at the preliminary hearing were present when the “bar room brawl” occurred which resulted in the defendant being charged with first degree manslaughter, and that…”
Bonsor v. Dist. Court of Cimarron Cnty., 303 P.2d 471 (Okla. Crim. App. 1956). “2, § 20 and statutes of Oklahoma, 22 O.S.1951, § 13; that the State of Oklahoma could have extradited petitioner from the Texas prison for trial and, that they, have failed and refused to do so and that petitioner is entitled to have the detainer removed against him and the case…”
Hazlewood v. Oklahoma City, 430 P.2d 852 (Okla. Crim. App. 1967). “⅜ ⅝ ⅜ » And 22 O.S.1941, § 13, subdiv. 3 is as follows : “3.”
Jackson v. State, 316 P.2d 213 (Okla. Crim. App. 1957). “, and 22 O.S.1951 § 13. Also, Thurmond v. State, 57 Okl.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 13(2): 3 cases
Duckett v. State, 919 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “Title 22 O.S.1981, § 13(2): "To be allowed counsel, as in civil actions, to appear and defend in person and with counsel;" (emphasis added).”
Mitchell v. Ward, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (W.D. Okla. 1999). “Mitchell Had No Liberty Interest in or Right to Allocution: Mitchell relies on 22 O.S. § 13(2) in support of his claim that Oklahoma law gave him a right to allocution.”
Waterdown v. State, 798 P.2d 635 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “22 O.S.1981, § 13(2). Moreover, by this ruling today a trial court would not possess the power to allow a continuance absent an affidavit, regardless of events that may unfold at trial.”
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.