proceeding - Construction of section. A. Upon any appeal of a conviction by the defendant in a noncapital criminal case, the appellate court, if it finds prejudicial error in the sentencing proceeding only, may set aside the sentence rendered and remand the case to the trial court in the jurisdiction in which the defendant was originally sentenced for resentencing. No error in the sentencing proceeding shall result in the reversal of the conviction in a criminal case unless the error directly affected the determination of guilt. B. When a criminal case is remanded for vacation of a sentence, the court shall: 1. Set the case for a nonjury sentencing proceeding; or 2. If the defendant was originally sentenced by a jury, impanel a new sentencing jury unless jury resentencing is waived by the defendant and the prosecutor. C. The defendant may affirmatively waive resentencing before the appropriate trial court within ninety (90) days of the appellate court order remanding for resentencing; provided, however, the defendant may not waive resentencing after the commencement of the resentencing hearing or trial. The defendant may not waive resentencing on an appeal or petition for a writ of extraordinary relief sought by the prosecution or if the original sentence was unlawful. If the defendant affirmatively waives resentencing pursuant to this subsection, the original sentence shall be reinstated by the trial court. A sentence reinstated pursuant to this subsection shall not be appealable by the defendant. D. All exhibits and a transcript of all testimony and other evidence properly admitted in the prior trial and sentencing shall be admissible in the new sentencing proceeding. The defendant may testify at his or her resentencing proceeding in accordance with the
requirements of the Oklahoma Evidence Code. Additional relevant evidence may be admitted including testimony of witnesses who testified at the previous trial. E. This section shall not be construed to amend or be in conflict with the provisions of Section 701.10 or 701.10a of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes relating to sentencing and resentencing in death penalty cases; Section 860.1 of this title relating to the trial procedure for defendants prosecuted for second or subsequent offense; or the provisions of Sections 926.1 and 927.1 of this title relating to assessment of punishment in the original trial proceedings. Added by Laws 1990, c. 261, § 1, emerg. eff. May 24, 1990. Amended by Laws 1997, c. 133, § 18, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 9, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2023, c. 205, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2023. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 18 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case:
Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11, 422 P.3d 741.
Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11, 422 P.3d 741.
· cites it 3× “The trial court shall schedule the matter for resentencing in accordance with both § 812.1 and § 929 of Title 22, and enter any orders which are necessary for the timely completion of discovery.”
Lambert v. State, 2003 OK CR 11, 71 P.3d 30.
· cites it 4× “Because the subsequent post-conviction application is pending in this Court and the remand is for determining if Appellant is mentally retarded, the district court is without jurisdiction to resentence Appellant until and unless, after the trial on mental retardation, this Court…”
Scott v. State, 808 P.2d 73 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 6× “We affirm the judgment and remand this case to the trial court for resentencing pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.1990, §§ 929 and 1066. Sometime on June 7, 1988, a confidential informant bought PCP at an upstairs apartment in the Vernon Manor Apartment complex in North Tulsa and reported…”
Stewart v. State, 2016 OK CR 9, 372 P.3d 508.
“, citing 22 O.S.2011, § 929. ¶24 In Proposition Two, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs.”
Coffia v. State, 2008 OK CR 24, 191 P.3d 594.
· cites it 2× “An even better result would be to remand the case for re-sentencing pursuant to 22 O.S.2001, § 929. NOTES [1] The docket sheet reflects that no court reporter was present at the hearing on Coffia's second motion to suppress.”
Harney v. State, 2011 OK CR 10, 256 P.3d 1002.
“See 22 O.S.2001, § 929. 120 In his third proposition of error, Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the full range of punishment for the offense of felony driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.”
McArthur v. State, 862 P.2d 482 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See 22 O.S.Supp. 1990, §§ 929, 1066, 1067. The power to modify the judgment and sentence has always been a part of the authority granted to this Court.”
Livingston v. State, 795 P.2d 1055 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
“Title 22 O.S.Supp.1990, § 929 and § 1066 now allows this Court the option of remanding for resentencing in a non-capital case.”
Crawford v. State, 881 P.2d 88 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
“10a to take precedence over the general provisions for resentencing found in 22 O.S.1991, § 929. See also Livingston v.”
Manuel v. State, 803 P.2d 714 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
“Pursuant to the authority given to this Court by the legislature in 22 O.S.Supp.1990, §§ 929 and 1066, we REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing.”
Mayes v. Province, 353 F. App'x 100 (10th Cir. 2009).
“In his motion to amend his petition, Mayes asserted that he “desire[d] to re-characterize his habeas claim to assert that the modification of his sentence to 35 years by the [OCCA] violated due process, because the proper procedure is to remand for resentencing pursuant to 22…”
White v. State, 2021 OK CR 29, 499 P.3d 762.
· cites it 3× “The trial court shall conduct resentencing pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 929[.] Each party shall be afforded the opportunity to present evidence concerning, but not limited to, the factors set out above.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 929(A): 3 cases
Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11, 422 P.3d 741.
“The trial court shall schedule the matter for resentencing in accordance with both § 812.1 and § 929 of Title 22, and enter any orders which are necessary for the timely completion of discovery.”
White v. State, 2021 OK CR 29, 499 P.3d 762.
“The trial court shall conduct resentencing pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 929[.] Each party shall be afforded the opportunity to present evidence concerning, but not limited to, the factors set out above.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 929(B)(2): 2 cases
Lambert v. State, 2003 OK CR 11, 71 P.3d 30.
“Because the subsequent post-conviction application is pending in this Court and the remand is for determining if Appellant is mentally retarded, the district court is without jurisdiction to resentence Appellant until and unless, after the trial on mental retardation, this Court…”
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.