A. If any person charged with a crime and held in jail solely by reason thereof is not brought to trial within nine (9) months after the initial appearance by the person on the charge, the court shall set the case for immediate review as provided in Section 812.2 of this title, to determine if the right of the accused to a speedy trial, as provided in this section and in Section 812.2 of this title, is being protected. B. If any person charged with a felony crime who is held to answer on an appearance bond is not brought to trial within eighteen (18) months after the initial appearance, the court shall set the case for immediate review as provided in Section 812.2 of this title to determine if the right of the accused to a speedy trial is being protected. C. In the event a mistrial is declared or a conviction is reversed on appeal, the time limitations provided for in this section shall commence to run from the date the mistrial is declared or the date of the mandate of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Added by Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 6, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1999. Amended by Laws 2024, c. 336, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2024.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2023 · leading case:
Ellis v. State, 2003 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003).
Ellis v. State, 2003 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “(He was arraigned on January 19, 1999, at which time bond was denied.) His trial commenced on May 21, 2001.”
Bulgin v. State, 912 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2005).
“Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 812.1 (A) (2004). If upon review the court finds the state has not proceeded with due diligence, the court may dismiss the case, but such dismissal does not preclude the refiling of charges as long as there is good cause and the dismissed case has not yet…”
Meyer v. Engle, 2016 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
“See 22 O.S.2011, § 812.1 (time limit to begin trial); 22 O.”
White v. State, 2021 OK CR 29 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
“Whether a juvenile murder defendant is entitled to jury resentencing is governed solely by Oklahoma law, specifically, 22 O.S.2011, §§ 812.1 and 929. ¶21 The notice, discovery and bifurcated sentencing procedures discussed above shall apply to resentencing proceedings of this…”
Kelly III v. State, 2023 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023).
“2, whenever any person charged with a crime and held in custody solely by reason thereof is not brought to trial within one year of arrest or is charged with a felony crime and held to answer on an appearance bond but is not brought to trial within eighteen months after arrest.”
Cornelius II v. State, 2023 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “" 22 O.S.2011, § 812.1 22 O.S.2011, § 812.1 Barker v.”
Cornelius II v. State, 2023 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “The record provides that Appellant was not being held solely for the charges brought before the court in this case. Appellant had two other cases he was being held on in addition to the present case.”
Meyer v. Engle, 2016 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
“See 22 O.S.2011, § 812.1 (time limit to begin trial); 22 O.”
Ensey v. Mullins, 187 F. App'x 901 (10th Cir. 2006).
“Ensey’s assertion that his right to a speedy trial was violated under the Oklahoma Constitution and Oklahoma's statutory provision concerning speedy trials, Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 812.1 . See Estelle v.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 812.1(A) — 2 cases
Ellis v. State, 2003 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003).
“(He was arraigned on January 19, 1999, at which time bond was denied.) His trial commenced on May 21, 2001.”
Cornelius II v. State, 2023 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023).
“The record provides that Appellant was not being held solely for the charges brought before the court in this case. Appellant had two other cases he was being held on in addition to the present case.”
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.