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

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 860 (2026)

Repealed by Laws 1998, c. 133, § 603, eff. July 1, 1999

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 603 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases, 1969–2017 · leading case: Williams v. State, 794 P.2d 759 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. State, 794 P.2d 759 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “Appellant has failed to acknowledge or apply the provisions of 22 O.S.1981, § 860. *762 This section became effective on June 30, 1965, and appears to be a response of the Legislature to the opinion of this Court in Harris v.”
Mooney v. State, 1999 OK CR 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “1991, § 2404(B); [12] (2) were inadmissible under 22 O.S.1991, § 860; [13] (3) were inadmissible hearsay; and (4) violated his presumption of innocence.”
Marshall v. State, 2010 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010). “2d 896, 903 , this Court held that bifurcation is not authorized in first-degree murder trials where the State is not seeking the death penalty, and there are no previous convictions in other counts requiring bifurcation under 22 O.S.2001, § 860. Later, in Carter v. State, 2006…”
Chapple v. State, 866 P.2d 1213 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “See 22 O.S.1991, § 860. Whenever a defendant is charged with multiple counts, one or more which require a prior conviction as an element of the crime, and one or more which do not, trial shall be bifurcated.”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Evans, 880 P.2d 333 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 2× “The pertinent terms of 22 O.S.1991 § 860 are: “In all cases in which the defendant is prosecuted for a second or subsequent offense .”
Reed v. State, 580 P.2d 159 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “In support of his contention the defendant argues that such a procedure was in violation of the provisions of 22 O.S.1971, § 860, which reads as follows, to-wit: “§ 860.”
Gamble v. State, 751 P.2d 751 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “Title 22 O.S.1981, § 860 forbids the introduction of prior convictions during the first stage of trial, “except in those cases in which former conviction is an element of the offense.”
Wilmeth v. State, 520 P.2d 699 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “Two concern the bifurcated procedure for prosecution of second or subsequent offenders established by 22 O.S. § 860 and the well known case of Harris v.”
Richardson v. State, 600 P.2d 361 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). “” Counsel characterizes this phrase as a reference to prior offenses, which would be prohibited in a bifurcated proceeding pursuant to 22 O.S.1971, § 860. Since bifurcated proceedings are conducted only for capital offenses and in the prosecution of defendants with prior felony…”
Isom v. State, 646 P.2d 1288 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982). “Furthermore, this case falls directly under the statutory provisions of 22 O.S.1981, § 860: In all cases in which the defendant is prosecuted for a second or subsequent offense, except in those cases in which former conviction is an element of the offense, the procedure shall be…”
Stover v. State, 674 P.2d 566 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984). “See 22 O.S.1981, § 860. A review of the record does not indicate that appellant did incur prejudice as a result of his attorney’s ignorance.”
Daniels v. State, 554 P.2d 88 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976). “Such a contention goes to the very heart of the Habitual Criminal Act, 22 O.S.1971, § 860. It is the purpose of this act that a jury be given the opportunity to set a more severe punishment for second or multiple offenders.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 860(a): 2 cases
Nash v. State, 685 P.2d 972 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
Bushman v. State, 648 P.2d 47 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 860(b): 3 cases
Phipps v. State, 572 P.2d 588 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
Lee v. State, 738 P.2d 173 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
Wilmeth v. State, 520 P.2d 699 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). “Two concern the bifurcated procedure for prosecution of second or subsequent offenders established by 22 O.S. § 860 and the well known case of Harris v.”
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.