Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 926 (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Repealed by Laws 1998, c. 133, § 603, eff.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 46
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2022 · leading case: State v. Hoffman, 804 P.2d 577 (Wash. 1991).
State v. Hoffman, 804 P.2d 577 (Wash. 1991). “It is argued that all that is involved in this case is the denial of a procedural right of exclusively state concern.”
Fite v. State, 873 P.2d 293 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “1957), this Court concluded the language in § 64 [1] limiting the authority to impose the fine to the court ran afoul of 22 O.S., §§ 926, 927, and 928, which provide that the jury shall, upon request of the defendant, assess punishment.”
Scott v. State, 808 P.2d 73 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “In a non-capital case where the Court has determined that a sentence is infirm due to trial error it may exercise one of three options; modify within the range of punishment [1] , modify to the minimum punishment allowable by law [2] , or remand to the trial court for…”
Joseph Arthur Carbray v. Ron Champion, Warden, 905 F.2d 314 (10th Cir. 1990). “Our original opinion interpreted Hicks as establishing a liberty interest protected under the Fourteenth Amendment in having the convicting jury exercise its discretion under Okla.Stat. tit. 22, § 926 (1981) in every instance.”
Wisdom v. State, 918 P.2d 384 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). “1993, § 701.10 provides for a separate sentencing stage to determine punishment in a capital murder proceeding.”
Romano v. State, 847 P.2d 368 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993). “The law and procedure to be followed in sentencing an individual convicted of a criminal offense is found in the statutory provisions of Title 21 and 22, specifically in 22 O.S.1981, § 926 and 21 O.S.1981, § 701.”
Brown v. State, 314 P.2d 362 (Okla. Crim. App. 1957). “And in support of such argument, our attention is called to 22 O.S.1951 § 926, reading: “In all cases of a verdict of conviction for any offense against any of the laws of the State of Oklahoma, the jury may, and shall upon the request of the defendant assess and declare the…”
Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “In addition, “The law and procedure to be followed in sentencing an individual convicted of a criminal offense is found in the statutory provisions of Title 21 and 22, specifically in 22 O.S.1981, § 926 and 21 O.S.1981, § 701.”
Swart v. State, 720 P.2d 1265 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “In Oklahoma a defendant's right to have a jury assess punishment is a matter of statute, 22 O.S. § 926 and § 927. It should also be noted that in the syllabus of the Court in Burtt v.”
Mitchell v. State, 884 P.2d 1186 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “22 O.S.1991, § 926. 67 . Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.”
Perryman v. State, 1999 OK CR 39 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). “Rather than litigating the issue of punishment for the non-capital offenses in the first stage of trial, the trial court submitted only the issue of guilt/innocence during first stage and the issue of punishment for all offenses during second stage. Because the jury heard…”
Stiles v. State, 829 P.2d 984 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). “To remand for resentencing by the trial court, appellant argues, would violate his right under 22 O.S.1981, § 926, which provides that the jury which convicts “shall upon the request of the defendant assess and declare the punishment in their verdict within the limitations fixed…”
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.