A. The designated drug court judge shall make all judicial decisions concerning any case assigned to the drug court docket or program. The judge shall require progress reports and a periodic review of each offender during his or her period of participation in the drug court program or for purposes of collecting costs and fees after completion of the treatment portion of the program. Reports from the treatment providers and the supervising staff shall be presented to the drug court judge as specified by the treatment plan or as ordered by the court. B. Upon the written or oral motion of the treatment provider, the district attorney, the defense attorney, the defendant, or the supervising staff, the drug court judge shall set a date for a hearing to review the offender, the treatment plan, and the provisions of the performance contract. Notice shall be given to the offender and the other parties participating in the drug court case three (3) days before the hearing may be held. C. The judge may establish a regular schedule for progress hearings for any offender in the drug court program. The district attorney shall not be required to attend regular progress hearings, but shall be required to be present upon the motion of any party to a drug court case. D. The treatment provider, the supervising staff, the district attorney, and the defense attorney shall be allowed access to all information in the offender's drug court case file and all information presented to the judge at any periodic review or progress hearing. E. The drug court judge shall recognize relapses and restarts in the program which are considered to be part of the rehabilitation and recovery process. The judge shall accomplish monitoring and offender accountability by ordering progressively increasing sanctions or providing incentives, rather than removing the offender from the program when relapse occurs, except when the offender's conduct requires revocation from the program. Any revocation from the drug court program shall require notice to the offender and other participating parties in the case and a revocation hearing. At the revocation hearing, if the offender is found to have violated the conditions of the plea agreement or performance contract and
disciplinary sanctions have been insufficient to gain compliance, the offender shall be revoked from the program and sentenced for the offense as provided in the plea agreement. F. Upon application of any participating party to a drug court case, the judge may modify a treatment plan at any hearing when it is determined that the treatment is not benefiting the offender. The primary objective of the judge in monitoring the progress of the offender and the treatment plan shall be to keep the offender in treatment for a sufficient time to change behaviors and attitudes. Modification of the treatment plan requires a consultation with the treatment provider, supervising staff, district attorney, and the defense attorney in open court. G. The judge shall be prohibited from amending the written plea agreement after an offender has been admitted to the drug court program. Nothing in this provision shall be construed to limit the authority of the judge to remove an offender from the program and impose the required punishment stated in the plea agreement after application, notice, and hearing. Added by Laws 1997, c. 359, § 8, eff. July 1, 1997.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1999–2014 · leading case:
Alexander v. State, 2002 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
Alexander v. State, 2002 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
· cites it 10× “¶ 5 We find no support in the record for Appellant's claim that the trial court did not consider Appellant's relapses and restarts as set forth at 22 O.S.1998, § 471.7. A review of Appellant's Drug Court program history shows that over a two-year period from Appellant's…”
Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
· cites it 9× “” 22 O.S.Supp.1998, § 471.7(A). In addition to authorizing drug court programs, the Act sets forth the eligibility requirements for an offender’s participation, procedures, to be used in admitting an offender to the program, duration of participation in the program, monitoring…”
Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
· cites it 3× “The trial court erred by failing to recognize Lewis's relapse under 22 O.S. § 471.7(E) and incorrectly revoked Lewis from Drug Court; and V.”
Sonnier v. State, 2014 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(E); Tate, 2018 OK CR 18 , ¶ 23, 313 P.”
Sonnier v. State, 2014 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(E); Tate , 2013 OK CR 18, ¶ 23, 313 P.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 471.7(A): 2 cases
Alexander v. State, 2002 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
“¶ 5 We find no support in the record for Appellant's claim that the trial court did not consider Appellant's relapses and restarts as set forth at 22 O.S.1998, § 471.7. A review of Appellant's Drug Court program history shows that over a two-year period from Appellant's…”
Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
“” 22 O.S.Supp.1998, § 471.7(A). In addition to authorizing drug court programs, the Act sets forth the eligibility requirements for an offender’s participation, procedures, to be used in admitting an offender to the program, duration of participation in the program, monitoring…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 471.7(B): 1 case
Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
“” 22 O.S.Supp.1998, § 471.7(A). In addition to authorizing drug court programs, the Act sets forth the eligibility requirements for an offender’s participation, procedures, to be used in admitting an offender to the program, duration of participation in the program, monitoring…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 471.7(C): 1 case
Alexander v. State, 2002 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
“¶ 5 We find no support in the record for Appellant's claim that the trial court did not consider Appellant's relapses and restarts as set forth at 22 O.S.1998, § 471.7. A review of Appellant's Drug Court program history shows that over a two-year period from Appellant's…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 471.7(E): 5 cases
Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
“” 22 O.S.Supp.1998, § 471.7(A). In addition to authorizing drug court programs, the Act sets forth the eligibility requirements for an offender’s participation, procedures, to be used in admitting an offender to the program, duration of participation in the program, monitoring…”
Lewis v. State, 2009 OK CR 30 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
“The trial court erred by failing to recognize Lewis's relapse under 22 O.S. § 471.7(E) and incorrectly revoked Lewis from Drug Court; and V.”
Alexander v. State, 2002 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
“¶ 5 We find no support in the record for Appellant's claim that the trial court did not consider Appellant's relapses and restarts as set forth at 22 O.S.1998, § 471.7. A review of Appellant's Drug Court program history shows that over a two-year period from Appellant's…”
Sonnier v. State, 2014 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014).
“22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(E); Tate, 2018 OK CR 18 , ¶ 23, 313 P.”
Sonnier v. State, 2014 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014).
“22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(E); Tate , 2013 OK CR 18, ¶ 23, 313 P.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 471.7(F): 3 cases
Alexander v. State, 2002 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
“¶ 5 We find no support in the record for Appellant's claim that the trial court did not consider Appellant's relapses and restarts as set forth at 22 O.S.1998, § 471.7. A review of Appellant's Drug Court program history shows that over a two-year period from Appellant's…”
Sonnier v. State, 2014 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014).
“22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(E); Tate, 2018 OK CR 18 , ¶ 23, 313 P.”
Sonnier v. State, 2014 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014).
“22 O.S.2011, § 471.7(E); Tate , 2013 OK CR 18, ¶ 23, 313 P.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 471.7(G): 1 case
Hagar v. State, 1999 OK CR 35 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
“” 22 O.S.Supp.1998, § 471.7(A). In addition to authorizing drug court programs, the Act sets forth the eligibility requirements for an offender’s participation, procedures, to be used in admitting an offender to the program, duration of participation in the program, monitoring…”
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.